MASTER 
NEGATIVE 

NO.  95-82459- 14 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  (Title  17,  United  States  Code) 
governs  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other  reproductions  of  copyrighted 
materials  including  foreign  works  under  certain  conditions.  In  addition, 
the  United  States  extends  protection  to  foreign  works  by  means  of 
various  International  conventions,  bilateral  agreements,  and 
proclamations. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and  archives  are 
authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other  reproduction.  One  of  these 
specified  conditions  Is  that  the  photocopy  or  reproduction  Is  not  to  be 
"used  for  any  purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or  research." 
If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a  photocopy  or  reproduction 
for  purposes  In  excess  of  "fair  use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright 
infringement. 

The  Columbia  University  Libraries  reserve  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copying  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order  would  Involve 
violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


Author: 


U.S.  Federal  Trade 
Commission 

Title: 

Report  on  the  beet  sugar 
industry  in  the... 

Place: 

Washington,  D.C. 

Date: 

1917 


MASTER    NEGATIVE   # 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DIVISION 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


ORIGINAL  MATERIAL  AS  FILMED  -    EXISTING  BIBLIOGRAPHIC  RECORD 


RESTRICTIONS  ON  USE: 


fS38,l 
Un334 


1 


U.  S.    Federal  trade  commission. 

...  Report  on  the  beet  sugar  industry  in  the  United 
States.  Alay  24,  19177  Washington,  Govt,  print,  off., 
1917. 

xii,  164  p.  inch  tables.    25''"'. 

At  head  of  title :  Federal  trade  commission. 

Anotlior  copy  in  BuninosG  Library* 


1.  Sugar  trade— U.  S.    2.  Beet  and  beet  sugar— U.  S.         i.  Title. 

17-26429 


'  mSiL 


Congress 
opy2. 


O 


HD9105AS    1917 


FILM 


SIZE:       ^^"^^ 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


REDUCTION  RATIO: 


ax 


IMAGE  PLACEMENT:   lA 


® 


IB      IIB 


DATE  FILMED:        H'^^'^S 


INITIALS 


■.Mr 


TRACKING  #  : 


M^a    OGOWQ 


FILMED  BY  PRESERVATION  RESOURCES.  BETHLEHEM.  PA. 


> 


J^/ 


J^- 


^2^^ 

^^^y^ 


'V? 


CO 

3 
3 


0) 

o  > 

Is 


o 

i 

</) 

C 
X 

OPQ 

^ 

^ 

N 

CO 

r\3 
cx> 
->. 
en 

^-< 

OOM 
O 


^^. 


CJl 

3 
3 


> 

CD 
0,0 

o  m 


CD  O 


CJ|3  ^ 
^  O  O 

CO 


< 

N 


M 


A^' 


.-v^' 


A/ 


^. 


^ 


^. 


.'^'^ 


^, 


^. 


^.. 


^,. 


e' 


>P.? 


^^ 


^^ 


^ 


v^ 


'S^ 


o 
o 

3 
i 


(/I 

o 

3 

3 


o 
o 

3 
3 


o 


E^'^BEEEi^i; 


IS  II 


isj 


Os 


00 


K) 

o 


N3 
00 


cn 


1.0  mm 


1.5  mm 


2.0  mm 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
atxdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz  1234567890 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzl234567890 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 

1234567890 


2.5  mm 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 

1234567890 


V 


<<^ 


^o 


<< 


f<r 


^^ 


^O 


?* 


^fp 


^f-s- 


A, 


^. 


4> 


&■ 


c 


'S- 


'^ 


^^ 


.^^ 


r.<^^ 


V 


& 


^o 


fo 


^:P 


fp 


^ 


m 

o 
■D  m  "o 

OLl"0 
>  C  cd 

I  ^  ^ 
m 

O 

m 


^J^. 


/^. 


<^ 


»—  ro 


Of 

3 
3 


3 
3 


IS 

3  — 


ll 


Is 


li 


''•V 

*_    "^i 


«^ 


4 


f. 
t 

^ 
I 

i 


h.' 


m 


'■m 


'ii\ 


u 


£. 


>. 


-» •-•^^-..-Liv.np"*' 


#-/ 


f  "-■'!■'./' 


FEDERAL  TRADE  COMMISSION 


REPORT 


ON 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY 
IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 


MAY  24,  1917 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 

1917 


A 


vj  . 


ADDITIONAL  COPIES 

OF  THIS  PUBUCATION  MAY  BE  PROCURED  FROM 

THE  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  DOCUMENTS 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 

■WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

AT 

20  CENTS  PER  COPY 


I** 


rAjT 


K»^ 


V^' 


xtuUxvtii-iKO 


<    ^ 


1* 


i 


CONTENTS 


Page. 

Letter  of  submittal ix 

Chapter  I.— Introduction. 

Section  1.  Purpose  and  scope  of  the  investigation 1 

Section  2.  Some  peculiar  characteristics  of  the  beet-sugar  industry. 2 

Short  operating  period 2 

Effort  required  to  secure  beets 6 

Section  3.  Development  and  progress  of  the  beet-sugar  industry  in  the  United 

States ^     6 

Building  of  beet-sugar  factories  in  the  United  States  since  1889 7 

Location  of  beet-sugar  factories  in  1914 11 

Growth  of  production 11 

Section  4.  Governmental  encouragement  of  the  industry 13 

Encouragement  through  Federal  tariff  legislation 13 

Encouragement  through  State  legislation 14 

Idaho ^  14 

Kansas 14 

Iowa 14 

'Minnesota •    15 

Michigan 15 

Nebraska 15 

New  York 15 

The  effect  of  tariffs  and  bounties  on  the  industry 16 

Section  5.  Consumption  of  sugar  in  continental  United  States 16 

Percentage  of  consumption  supplied  by  domestic  beet-sugar  factories 18 

Chapter  II. — Beet  Growing. 

1.   YIELD  and   quality   OF   BEETS  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES. 

Section  1.  Introduction 20 

Section  2, '  Yield  of  sugar  beets  per  acre 21 

Section  3.  Quality  of  beets 22 " 

Percentage  of  sugar  in  beets 22 

Purity  of  beets 23 

Sugar  extraction 24 

Summary  of  yield  and  quality  of  beets 25 

Section  4.  Experimental  results  in  beet  growing 28 

11.    COST  AND  PROFITS   OP  BEET  GROWING. 

Section  5.  Methods  employed  in  securing  data 28 

Difficulties  due  to  lack  of  records 29 

Section  6.  Representativeness  and  reliability  of  data 30 

Representativeness  of  the  information  secured ! 30 

Reliability  of  data 31 

m 


1 


p^ 


Ik 


IV 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

Section  7,  Classifying  and  tabulating  data 32 

Section  8.  Cost  and  profits  of  individual  growers  in  1913 34 

Section  9.  Average  cost  and  profits  of  individual  growers  for  three  years 47 

Relation  of  profits  to  yield « 55 

Average  results  by  districts 57 

Section  10.  Profits  from  beets  compared  with  profits  from  other  crops 58 

Chapter  III. — Cost  op  Producing  Beet  Sugar. 

Section  1.  Introduction qi 

Costs  cover  only  the  sugar  manufacturing  business 62 

Bases  of  cost  computations 62 

Identity  of  factory  concealed 62 

Section  2.  Proportion  of  total  production  covered  by  cost  tables 62 

Section  3.  Details  of  elements  of  cost 63 

Details  of  certain  cost  items 64 

Interest  excluded  from  cost 65 

Section  4.  Depreciation 65 

Method  of  arriving  at  a  depreciation  charge 66 

Cost  of  plant  investment 67 

Rate  of  depreciation 68 

Section  5.  Average  cost  of  production  for  five  years,  by  factories 69 

Relation  of  various  cost  items  to  the  total  factory  cost 75 

Relation  of  cost  of  beets  to  cost  of  sugar 76 

Cost,  including  depreciation 79 

Section  6.  Average  cost  of  production  for  five  years,  by  States 79 

Effect  of  by-products  on  net  cost 81 

Pulp *..  82 

Molasses 83 

Unusually  high  costs  for  some  factories  in  1911-12 83 

Section  7.  Average  costs  by  groups  of  factories 85 

Section  8.  Comparative  cost  of  production  for  all  factories,  by  years 86 

Section  9.  Cost  of  sugar  manufactured  per  ton  of  beets 87 

Chapter  IV. — Distribution  op  Sugar. 

Section  1.  Introduction 92 

Section  2.  Where  beet  sugar  is  consumed 92 

Section  3.  Cost  of  distribution 94 

Freight  charges ." 100 

Other  expenses lOO 

Net  prices  received 102 

When  beet  sugar  is  sold 103 

Chapter  V. — Investment,  Capitalization,  and  Earnings  of  Beet- 
Sugar  Companies. 

Section  1.  Investment  and  capitalization 123 

Comparison  of  cost  of  investment  with  capital  liabilities 123 

Section  2.  Relations  of  earnings  to  capital  employed 127 

Earnings  in  the  sugar  business 128 

Section  3.  Rates  of  earnings  on  capital  employed 129 

Rates  of  earnings  by  groups  of  companies 132 

Section  4.  Rates  of  earnings  on  net  investment 133 


CONTENTS.  V 

Chapter  VI.— Eppiciency  in  the  Beet-Sugar  Industry. 

Page. 

Section  1.  Principal  elements  to  consider  in  studying  efficiency 135 

Mechanical  elements ^^^ 

Economic  elements  to  be  considered 136 

Difficulties  in  a  comparative  study  of  efficiency  in  beet-sugar[factories 136 

Section  2.  Comparisons  based  on  scale  of  operations 137 

Section  3.  Important  economic  advantage  of  favorable  location 141 

Location  with  respect  to  the  supply  of  beets 141 

Advantage  of  proximity  to  markets 145 

Section  4.  Comparisons  based  on  factory  equipment 146 

Steffens  process 1^^ 

Pulp  driers 1^^ 

Section  5.  Conclusions 151 

Chapter  VII. — Relations  Between  Sugar  Manufacturers  and 

Beet  Growers. 

Section  1.  Interdependence  of  the  two  interests 152 

Section  2.  Contract  prices  for  beets 153 

Contracts  in  1913  and  1914 154 

Contracts  in  1915 160 

Apparent  inconsistencies  in  contracts 161 

Section  3.  The  test  of  a  fair  price  for  beets 163 

The  reasonableness  of  basing  the  price  of  beets  upon  the  price  of  sugar 164 


1 


;   I 


r* 


m 


LIST  OF  TABLES. 


1.— Days  of  operation,  by  factories  and  by  States,  campaigns  of  1909-10  to 

1913-14,  inclusive « 

2.— Annual  production  of  beet  sugar  in  the  United  States  from  1889-90  to 

1914-15,  inclusive -.n 

3.— Consumption  of  sugar  in  continental  United  States,  1865-1914 .......        17 

4.— Percentage  of  the  total  consumption  of  sugar  in  the  United  States  pro- 
duced from  domestic  cane  and  beets,  1899  to  1914,  inclusive 18 

5.— Average  yield  of  sugar  beets  per  acre  in  the  United  States,  by  States,  1904 

to  1914,  inclusive oi 

6.-Average  sugar  in  beets  used  in  the  United  Statesyby' States,  1904*  to 

'   1914 23 

7.-^Average  purity  coefficient  of  beets  used  in  the  United  States,  by  States 

1904tol914 _  '        24 

8.— Average  extraction  of  sugar  per  ton  of  beets  used  in  the  United  States' 

by  States,  1904  to  1914. 25 

9.— Acreage  harvested,  average  yield  per  acre,  average  sugar  content  and 

purity  of  beets,  and  average  extraction,  by  States,  1904-1914 26 

10.— Acreage  harvested,  average  yield  per  acre,  average  sugar  content  and 
punty  of  beets,  and  average  extraction,  for  the  United  States,  1904- 
1914 27 

11.— Costs  and  profits  of  growing  beets   in    the   United    States,   by  farms 

grouped  by  districts,  1913 34 

12.— Costs  and  profits  of  beet  growing,  by  farms  and  by  districts;  averages  for 

the  three  years  1911,  1912,  and  1913 49 

13.— Average  costs  and  profits,  by  districts,  for  the  three  years  1911    1912 

and  1913 '        g^ 

14.— Cost  of  producing  100  pounds  of  granulated   sugar,  by  factories;  aver- 
ages for  the  five  years  1909-10  to  1913-14,  inclusive 72 

15.— Relation  of  certain  cost  items  to  net  factory  cost,  for  the  five-year  period 

1909-1913,  by  factories 76 

16.— Comparison  of  cost  of  beets  with  gross  cost  of  sugar,  not  including  depre- 
ciation; averages  for  the  five  years  1909-10  to  1913-14,  inclusive 77 

17.— Comparison  of  cost  of  beets  with  net  cost  of  sugar,  not  including  depre'- 

ciation;  average  for  the  five  years  1909-10  to  1913-14,  inclusive 78 

18.— Average  cost  of  producing  100  pounds  of  granulated  sugar,  by  States,  for 

the  five  years  1909-10  to  1913-14 30 

19.— Average  net  value  of  by-products  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  produced,  by 

States,  for  five  years  ending  1913-14 \  32 

20.— Comparison  of  average  net  cost,  not  including  depreciation,  of  producing 
100  pounds  of  sugar  in  Michigan,  Ohio,  and  Wisconsin  for  the  five  years 
ending  with  1913-14,  the  year  1911-12,  and  for  four  years  excluding 


I 


LIST  OF  TABLES. 


vn 


Pag«^ 


21, — ^Average  net  cost  per  100  pounds  of  sugar,  and  the  percentage  of  the  total 
sugar  produced  during  the  five  years  ending  with  the  campaign  of  1913- 
14,  for  64  factories,  grouped  according  to  the  net  cost  of  production 86 

22. — ^Average  sugar  extraction  per  ton  of  beets  and  average  cost  of  the  manu- 
facture of  sugar  per  ton  of  beets  sliced  by  factories,  for  the  five  years 
1909-1913 88 

23.— Beet  sugar  sold  by  24  companies  in  the  various  States  for  the  year  1912 

and  29  companies  in  1913 92 

24. — Gross  receipts  per  100  pounds  of  beet  sugar,  selling  expense,  and  net 
price  at  factory  per  100  pounds,  by  companies,  for  the  years  1909-10  to 
1913-14,  inclusive 95 

25. — Percentage  of  total  sales  of  beet  sugar  made  in  each  month,  by  years 

and  by  States  of  production,  1910-11  to  1913-14 103 

26.— Excess  of  Detroit,  Denver,  and  San  Francisao  quotations  for  granulated 

sugar  (beet)  over  New  York  quotations  (cane),  weekly,  1913  and  1914. .      106 

27. — Quotations  of  raw  sugar  and  refined  granulated  sugar  at  New  York,  and 

margin  between  raw  and  refined,  by  weeks,  1890  to  1914 108 

28. — Percentage  of  overcapitalization  or  undercapitalization  of  beet-sugar  com- 
panies at  the  end  of  the  years  1909-10  and  1913-14 124 

29. — Rates  of  earnings  on  capital  employed,  taking  account  of  depreciation, 
in  the  manufacture  of  beet  sugar,  allowing  one-half  of  the  total  cost  of 
production  for  working  capital,  by  years,  and  averages  for  five  years, 
1909-10  to  1913-14,  inclusive 130 

30. — ^Annual  rates  of  earnings  from  sugar  on  net  investment  in  the  sugar  busi- 
ness, by  companies,  1909-10  to  1913-14,  and  the  average  annual  rate  of 
earnings  for  the  five  years 133 

31. — ^Average  cost  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  produced  by  groups,  for  the  year 

1913-14 139 

32. — Comparison  of  the  average  cost  of  beets  and  the  net  cost  of  production, 
not  including  depreciation,  during  the  five-year  period  1909-1913,  by 
factories,  grouped  according  to  the  amount  of  sugar  extracted  per  ton  of 
beets  sliced 142 

33. — Comparison  of  the  average  prices  received  for  beet  sugar,  the  cost  of  selling 
and  the  net  price  received  at  the  factory  per  100  pounds,  for  the 
five-year  period  1909-1913,  by  States. 145 


i 


I 


^< 


J, 


ACKNOWLEDGMENT. 


The  Commission  desires  to  mention  as  especially  contributing  to 
the  preparation  of  this  report  Mr.  T.  M.  Kobertson  and  Mr.  H.  L. 
Anderson,  who  assisted  Mr.  Eobertson. 


vm 


I,-* 


fe 


LEHER  OF  SUBMITTAL 


The  Federal  Trade  Commission, 

WasMngton,  May  2i,  1917. 

To  the  Congress: 

There  is  submitted  herewith  a  report  on  conditions  in  the  beet- 
sugar  industr}^  in  the  United  States.  The  investigation  was  begun 
by  the  Commissioner  of  Corporations  at  the  direction  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  Commerce  because  of  complaints  on  the  part  of  farmers  that 
they  were  not  receiving  a  fair  price  for  beets. 

The  report  deals  chiefly  with  the  costs  and  profits  of  growing  sugar 
beets,  the  cost  of  manufacturing  and  marketing  beet  sugar,  the  profits 
in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  beet  sugar,  and  the  relations  between 
sugar-beet  growers  and  beet-sugar  manufacturers.  It  covers  in  de- 
tail the  operations  o£  all  the  beet-sugar  factories  in  the  United  States, 
except  two  small  ones,  during  the  five-year  period  ending  with  the 
business  year  of  1913-14. 

Because  of  the  lack  of  funds  to  prosecute  work  other  than-  that  spe- 
cifically directed  by  Congress,  this  report  has  been  delayed,  much  to 
the  regret  of  the  Commission.  It  would  have  been  desirable  to  bring 
the  information  down  to  a  later  date,  but  such  a  course  was  not 
possible  because  of  the  lack  of  an  available  force. 

A  discussion  of  the  economic  position  of  the  industry  is  not 
included  in  the  report  because  it  involves  the  consideration  of  mat- 
ters strictly  within  the  province  of  another  governmental  agency. 
A  chapter  dealing  with  this  subject  has  been  prepared  and  it, 
together  with  all  the  data  collected  during  this  investigation,  has 
been  turned  over  to  the  United  States  Tariff  Commission. 

In  1914,  700,000  tons  of  beet  sugar  was  produced  in  the  United 
States  in  78  factories.  The  four  principal  centers  of  production  were 
Michigan  and  northern  Ohio,  Colorado,  northern  Utah  and  southern 
Idaho,  and  California,  but  12  other  States  contributed  to  the  total 
production.  Michigan  and  Colorado  each  had  16  factories  in  1914, 
California  had  13,  Utah  7,  Idaho  and  Ohio  5  each,  and  Wisconsin  4. 
There  were  10  States  that  had  only  1  factory  each.  California  and 
Colorado  produced  more  than  50  per  cent  of  the  total  production  of 
the  country  during  the  five  years  covered  by  the  report.    The  annual 


IX 


^< 


4 


trm — : — :t — r- 


ii'-^-._  *. 


^}^!^^ 


if! 


lii 


Iff 


^  LETTER  OF   SUBMITTAL. 

consiimptii,/!  of  sugar  in  the  United  States  is  approximately  4,300,000 
tons,  and  about  16  per  cent  of  this  was  produced  in  domestic  beet- 
sugar  factories  in  1913-14. 

GROWTH  OF  THE  INDUSTRY. 

There  were  only  3  beet-sugar  factories  in  operation  in  the  United 
States  in  1870,  and  this  number  had  increased  to  only  9  by  1897,  but 
in  1914,  as  already  stated,  there  were  78.  The  production  has  in- 
creased from  less  than  45,000  tons  in  1897  to  more  than  700,000  tons 
in  1914. 

The  rapid  development  of  the  industry  after  1897  has  been  largely 
due  to  direct  encouragement  by  the  Federal  and  State  Governments, 
particularly  the  former.  While  customs  tariffs  have  afforded  a  large 
measure  of  protection  to  the  industry  since  1883,  it  was  not  until 
after  the  tariff  act  of  1897  that  the  rapid  development  of  the  industry 
began.  In  1897  Michigan  enacted  a  State  bounty  law  which  greatly 
stimulated  the  building  of  factories  in  that  State.  Soon  afterwards 
other  States  enacted  similar  laws,  but  they  were  all,  including  those 
of  Michigan,  soon  repealed  or  declared  unconstitutional. 

CX)ST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET  SUGAR. 

The  average  cost  for  64  factories  producing  96  per  cent  of  all  the 
beet  sugar  in  the  United  States  during  the  five  years  ending  with  the 
season  1913-14  was  $3.74  per  100  pounds,  including  depreciation, 
which  for  these  factories  averaged  25  cents.    The  average  cost  of  36 
factories  producing  74  per  cent  of  the  sugar  was  $3.46 ;  the  average 
for  26  factories  producing  57  per  cent  of  the  sugar  was  $3.36.    On  the 
other  hand,  21  factories  producing  15  per  cent  of  the  sugar  had  an 
average  cost  of  $4.84.    There  was  a  wide  range  of  cost  in  different 
factories.    The  lowest  average  cost,  for  any  factory  for  the  five-year 
period,  including  depiecxation,  was  $2.94  and  the  highest  was  $6.45 
per  100  pounds.     Speaking  broadly,  this  wide  variation  was  due 
mainly  to  differences  in  the  cost  of  beets  per  100  pounds  of  sugar,  but 
there  were  also  wide  differences  in  the  cost  of  manufacture.     The 
average  cost  of  beets  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  for  these  64  factories 
during  the  five-year  period  ranged  from  $1.64  to  $4.48,  while  the 
additional  cost  of  production,  including  overhead  expenses  but  not 
including  depreciation,  ranged  from  44  cents  to  $2.44.    In  general, 
high  cost  of  beets  is  accompanied  by  high  cost  of  sugar. 

There  was  also  a  notably  wide  variation  in  average  costs  in  differ- 
ent States.  The  lowest  average  cost  for  the  five-year  period,  in- 
cluding depreciation,  was  $3.27  per  100  pounds  in  California,  and 
omitting  the  States  that  had  only  one  factory  each  the  highest  average 


LETTER  OF   SUBMITTAL. 


XI 


cost  was  $4.88  in  Wisconsin.  The  average  cost  of  beets  in  California 
for  the  five-year  period  was  only  $2.05  per  100  pounds  of  sugar,  while 
in  Wisconsin  it  was  $3.50. 

EARNINGS  IN  TMF:  BF.ET-SUGAR  BUSINESS. 

With  respect  to  earnings  the  report  coa  ers  37  companies,  operating 
77  factories,  that  produced  nearly  99  per  cent  of  all  the  beet  sugar 
manufactured  in  the  United  States  during  the  five  years  ending  with 
the  season  1913-14.  During  this  period  these  companies  earned  in 
the  sugar  manufacturing  business  an  average  of  11  per  cent  on  the 
capital  employed  therein.  The  average  earnings  of  all  the  companies 
by  years  ranged  from  16  per  cent  in  1909-10  to  3  per  cent  in  1913-14. 
In  no  other  year,  except  1913-14,  were  the  average  earnings  as  low  as 
8^  per  cent.  The  extremely  low  earnings  in  the  year  1913-14  were 
due  to  the  unusually  low  prices  of  sugar. 

Some  companies  operated  at  a  loss  during  most  of  the  period,  while 
others  made  very  large  profits.  Thus,  the  operations  of  29  companies 
producing  95  per  cent  of  all  the  beet  sugar  manufactured  in  the 
United  States  during  the  five-year  period  showed  average  results 
varying  from  a  loss  of  nearly  18  per  cent  to  gains  of  nearly  45  per 
cent.  Thirteen  companies  producing  75  per  cent  of  all  the  beet  sugar 
in  the  United  States  had  average  earnings  of  more  than  9  per  cent  on 
the  capital  employed  in  the  business,  and  7  companies  producing  53 
per  cent  of  the  sugar  earned  on  the  average  over  16  per  cent.  On 
the  other  hand,  16  companies  that  earned  an  average  of  less  than  5 
per  cent  produced  13^  per  cent  of  the  sugar,  and  9  companies  operat- 
ing at  an  average  loss  produced  only  9|  per  cent  of  the  sugar. 

Upon  the  whole,  capital  employed  in  the  beet-sugar  business  earned 
very  fair  returns  during  the  period. 

BEET  GROWING. 

The  cost  of  growing  and  selling  sugar  beets  and  the  gross  return 
from  their  sale  were  secured  from  a  number  of  representative  growers 
in  every  locality  where  beet  sugar  is  manufactured.  There  was 
found  a  wide  range  of  results  varying  from  actual  losses  to  large 
profits.  The  expense  of  growing  and  marketing  beets  is  very  high. 
It  was  found  to  range  from  a  little  less  than  $35  to  more  than  $50 
per  acre.  The  gross  returns,  however,  were  correspondingly  high. 
The  average  annual  returns  in  the  various  beet-sugar  districts  for 
a  period  of  three  years  ending  with  1913  ranged  from  about  $60  to 
more  than  $75  per  acre,  and  the  average  net  profit  per  acre  ranged 
from  less  than  $20  to  about  $40.  The  highest  net  profits  per  acre 
were  found  in  California,  Colorado,  and  Utah.  The  lowest  net 
profits  in  any  district  of  considerable  size  were  in  Michigan.    In 


M 


^< 


»   . 


^ 

» 


r 


xn 


LETTEB  OF  SUBMITTAL. 


three  California  districts  the  net  profits  ranged  from  $38  to  $45  per 
acre ;  in  Colorado  the  range  was  from  $27  to  $37 ;  in  Utah  the  range 
was  from  $25  to  $37,  while  in  Michigan  it  was  only  $17  per  acre. 

Comparing  the  net  profits  of  beet  growing  with  those  from  other 
branches  of  agriculture,  it  appears  probable  that  no  other  important 
standard  crop  would  year  after  year  yield  better  net  returns  per 
acre  than  beets.  Many  farmers,  however,  insist  with  apparent  reason 
that  they  are  entitled  to  a  better  return  on  beets  than  on  most  other 
crops.  This  is  because  of  the  unusual  care  and  diligence  required  to 
grow  them  as  compared  with  general  field  crops,  and  because  of  the 
usually  large  outlay  of  cash  for  labor. 

With  respect  to  the  complaint  of  the  farmer  that  he  does  not 
receive  a  fair  price  for  his  beets,  it  is  generally,  though  not  uni- 
versally, admitted  that  beets  are  more  profitable  than  most  other 
crops.     The  beet  grower  contends,  however,  that  the  prices  he  re- 
ceives should  depend  upon  the  prices  of  sugar;  in  other  words, 
that  he  should  receive  a  price  as  high  as  the  profits  of  the  beet-sugar 
manufacturer  will  enable  him  to  pay.    The  manufacturer,  it  should 
be  noted,  guarantees  a  price  for  beets  before  the  seed  are  planted,  thus 
assuring  the  grower  a  market  at  a  fixed  price.    It  is  therefore  argued, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  as  the  manufacturer  always  assumes  the  risk 
of  a  decline  in  the  price  of  sugar,  while  the  farmer  assumes  no  risk 
whatever  in  the  price  of  beets,  the  latter  should  be  content  with  the 
prices  he  has  been  receiving  unless  he  is  willing  to  assume  the  risk 
m  a  fluctuating  sugar  market.    It  is  pointed  out  that  it  would  be 
a  shortsighted  policy  on  the  part  of  the  manufacturer  to  force  down 
the  price  of  beets  to  a  point  unprofitable  to  the  farmer,  because  in 
so  doing  he  would  force  him  to  abandon  that  crop  for  others  afford- 
ing a  profit. 

The  principle  of  basing  the  general  price  of  beets  upon  the  price 
of  sugar  seems  to  be  an  equitable  one,  but  whether  it  can  be  made 
practical  in  its  application  can  be  determined  only  by  experience. 

The  late  Commissioner  Will  H.  Parry  manifested  a  special  in- 
terest in  this  investigation.  The  intelligent  judgment  which  he 
brought  to  bear  upon  all  matters  claiming  his  attention  was  espe- 
cially valuable  in  this  connection  because  of  his  intimate  knowledge 
of  the  industry.  The  manuscript  for  the  report  had  his  approval 
and  It  was  sent  to  the  printer  before  his  death. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

William  J.  Harris,  OTvairman. 
Joseph  E.  Da  vies. 
William  B.  Colver. 
John  F.  Fort. 


1 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


CHAPTER  I. 
INTRODUCTION. 

Section  1.  Purpose  and  scope  of  the  investigation. 

This  investigation  was  undertaken  by  the  Bureau  of  Corporations 
because  of  complaints  made  by  beet  growers  that  the  prices  that  they 
received  for  beets  were  not  commensurate  with  the  price  of  sugar 
and  the  consequent  profits  realized  by  beet  sugar  manufacturers. 
The  work  was  not  completed  until  after  the  Bureau  of  Corpora- 
tions was  merged  into  the  Federal  Trade  Commission.  The  scope 
of  the  inquiry  was  broadened  to  cover  not  only  the  matter  com- 
plained of  by  the  farmers  but  also  to  include  a  careful  study  of  the 
principal  phases  of  the  beet  sugar  industry  in  the  United  States, 
from  the  growing  of  the  beets  to  the  selling  of  the  refined  sugar. 
It  is  intended  to  show  the  condition  of  the  industry  as  a  whole. 

The  period  covered  by  the  report  is  the  five  years  ending  with 
the  season  of  1913-14.  Every  locality  producing  beet  sugar  in  1913 
was  visited  and  the  books  of  every  beet  sugar  manufacturing  com- 
pany operating  in  that  year  except  one  were  examined.  With  this 
one  exception  all  of  the  beet  sugar  manufacturers  in  the  United 
States  willingly  gave  access  to  their  books  and  afforded  every  oppor- 
tunity for  the  examination  and  compilation  of  all  data  desired. 
From  the  books  of  the  companies  there  were  obtained  details  of  the 
cost  of  production,  investment,  capitalization,  and  earnings,  and 
many  other  facts  relating  to  their  business. 

The  sales  of  sugar  by  months  were  obtained  from  all  companies 
and  also  the  quantity  sold  in  each  State  wherever  such  data  were 
available.  These  statistics  show  the  average  gross  receipts  per  pound 
of  sugar,  the  average  freight  rate  and  selling  expenses,  and  the  net 
price  realized  at  the  factory.  Freight  rates  from  all  the  beet  sugar 
producing  and  the  cane  sugar  refining  districts  have  been  compiled 
from  published  freight  tariffs.  A  comparison  of  these  rates  from 
various  beet  sugar  producing  sections  with  the  rates  from  the  cane- 
sugar  refineries  to  the  principal  centers  of  consumption  marks  in 

some  measure  the  lines  of  competition  between  beet  and  cane  sugars. 

1 


•      >i 


I 


^< 


j»  ^i 


.   M^AM 


MM^JWl^ 


•'PjWPJf^-^^^^sgygiiwgf^^s^-^^  - 


MK 


UA 


■^■rr^^^lk 


i 


I 


1 


m 


2  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.     ■ 

Hundreds  of  beet  growers  were  visited  in  the  vicinity  of  the  beet- 
sugar  factories  and  data  regarding  the  costs  and  profits  of  beet  grow- 
ing  were  obtained  from  them.  The  reliability  of  this  informatL  is 
supported  by  a  mass  of  statistical  data  secured  from  the  beet-sugar 
factories  and  from  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture 
and  various  State  agricultural  experiment  stations. 

It  was  intended  to  collect  and  compile  information  covering  the 
industry  in  the  principal  beet  sugar  producing  countries  of  Europe ' 
Agents  were  sent  to  France,  Germany,  and  elsewhere  in  Europe,  but 
before  the  work  had  progressed  far  beyond  the  preliminary  stages 
It  was  abruptly  terminated  by  the  outbreak  of  war.    The  only  re- 
source left  was  such  information  relating  to  beet  growing  and  the 
manufacture  of  beet  sugar  in  Europe  as  was  avaSble  il  variou 
publications    Many  such  publications  have  been  carefully  examined 
but  the  publ^hed  statistics  covering  these  matters  are  generally  in- 
complete m  details  and  the  statements  of  facts  necessary  for  proper 
interpretation  are  madequate.    Under  these  circumstances  it  is  im- 
possible to  make  satisfactory  comparisons  with  data  collected  in  this 
country^   For  these  reasons  conditions  in  foreign  countries  are  not 
discussed  m  the  report. 

Section  2.  Some  pecnliar  characteristics  of  the  beet  sugar  industry. 

In  some  important  aspects  the  beet  sugar  industry  is  peculiar.    Its' 
principal  raw  material   (beets)   must  be  produced  mainly  in  the 
vicmity  of  the  factory  and  in  sufficient  quantity  to  assure  a  reasonable 
period  of  annual  operation.    Beets  deteriorate  in  quality  if  kept  for 
any  considerable  length  of  time,  and  consequently  the  annual  operat- 
ing period  >  of  a  factory  is  at  most  short,  rarely  exceeding  100  days, 
and  often  considerably  below  this.    Except  in  the  case  of  some 
branches  of  the  canning  industry  these  peculiar  circumstances  place 
the  beet  sugar  mdustry  practically  in  a  class  by  itself  among  indus- 
trial activities.    A  beet  sugar  factory  and  the  farmers  supplying  it 
with  beets  depend  on  each  other  in  an  unusual  degree.    The  factory 
can  not  go  to  a  remote  district  to  secure  its  beets  nor  can  the  beet 
growers  m  one  district  find  a  profitable  market  for  their  product  at 
any  great  distance  from  their  farms.    There  are  instances  indeed 
where  beets  are  shipped  100  to  200  miles,  but  such  cases  are  rare  and 
the  quantity  of  beets  shipped  long  distances  forms  an  inconsiderable 
proportion  of  the  total. 

Short  operating  PERioD.-Sugar  beets,  as  already  stated,  can  not 
be  kept  a  very  long  time  without  deterioration.  They  will  keep  in 
a  frozen  state,  but  they  must  be  worked  before  they  thaw.    The 

'  The  yearly  transactions  of  a  beet  sugar  factory  Is  -ailed  a  "  cammt™  "     if  in,„i, 
T    "»""V°  r-"""'""  """  *■>'  •=»-t™ctlng  for'and  manufLturtngof^a  crop  of  beets' 

S^,  brs":  rtrard'm'an,""  "™^'°^  "  ™'"™^'^  ">'  "  ^"-'^  »'  beets  and^nds  w  en 
ine  Deets  contracted  m  any  one  year  have  been  converted  into  sugar. 


INTRODUCTION. 


3 


harvest  begins  in  the  late  summer  or  early  fall,  and  they  must  there- 
fore be  worked  before  the  first  warm  days  of  spring.  For  this  reason 
the  operating  period  of  a  factory  is  comparatively  short,  and  the 
plants  usually  lie  idle  for  at  least  two-thirds  of  the  year  and  often 
longer.  During  the  idle  period  the  investment  in  the  plant  is  not 
earning  anything.  Probably  few  if  any  other  industries  with  such  a 
large  investment  in  plant  equipment  have  such  a  short  period  of 
operation.  Furthermore,  when  the  plant  ceases  to  operate  the  or- 
ganization of  employees  is  broken  up  and  most  of  the  employees  are 
discharged.  As  a  consequence,  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  em- 
ployees in  most  factories  are  new  and  sometimes  wholly  inexperi- 
enced at  the  commencement  of  each  working  season. 

The  number  of  days  each  factory  covered  by  this  report  operated 
in  each  year  during  the  5  years  ending  with  1913-14  is  shown  in 
Table  1,  below.  The  table  also  shows  the  annual  average  niynber  of 
days  each  factory  operated  in  the  5  years  and  the  average  for  all  the 
factories  in  each  State  for  each  year  and  for  the  5  years. 

Table  1.— DAYS  OF  OPEKATION,  BY  FACTORIES  AND  BY  STATES,  CAMPAIGNS  OF 

1909-10  TO  1913-14,  INCLUSIVE. 


State  and  company. 

1909-10 

1910-11 

1911-12 

1912-13 

1913-14 

Average. 

Michigan. 
Continental  Sugar  Co.  (Blissfleld) 

Days. 
75 
90 
53 
69 
38 
77 
99 

100 
72 
6S 

107 

104 
45 
70 

104 

Days. 

106 

118 

63 

110 

39 

109 

127 

123 

104 

129 

117 

93 

97 

94 

131 

Days. 
126 
114 
128 
138 
77 
137 
143 
133 
136 
131 
135 
159 
124 
126 
117 
49 

Days. 
124 
72 
75 
74 
73 
79 
84 
68 
51 

Days. 

105 
71 
80 

103 
56 

117 

119 
96 
78 

Days. 

German-American  Sugar  Co.  (Bay  City) . . 

HoUand-St.  Louis  Sugar  Co.  (Holland) 

HoUand-St.  Louis  Sugar  Co.  (St. Louis) . .. 
MflnnTTiinftft  Rivnr  Siipar  Cn      , 

107 
93 
80 
99 

Michigan  Sugar  Co.  (Alma) 

57 

Michigan  Sugar  Co.  (Bay  City) 

104 

Michigan  Sugar  Co.  (Caro) 

114 

Michigan  Sugar  Co.  (Croswell) 

104 

Michigan  Sugar  Co.  (Saginaw) 

88 

Michigan  Sugar  Co.  (Sebewaing) 

to                lyk 
78               80 

1  AO                               1  /^O 

98 

Mount  Clemens  Sugai-  Co. .  .     .         

103 

Owosso  Sugar  Co.  (Lansing) 

106 
88 
46 
61 

79 
58 
60 

113 

Owosso  Sugar  Co.  (Owosso) .        .  .  .*. 

87 

West  Bay  City  Sugar  Co 

79 

Western  Sugar  Refining  Co :. 

95 
49 

Average 

78 

104 

123 

77 

86 

94 

Ohio  and  Indiana. 
Continental  Sugar  Co.  (Findlav)     .. 

114 
127 
100 

104 
105 
76 
56 
66 
91 

88 
76 
65 
47 
75 
91 

in? 

Continental  Sugar  Co.  (Fremont). 

86 

80 
89 

95 
83 

German-American  Sugar  Co.  (Paulding). . 

Holland-St.  Louis  Sugar  Co.  (Decatur) 

Ottawa  Sugar  Co 

71 

91 

Toledo  Sugar  Co 

Average 

86 

85 

114 

83 

74 

85 

1 


I- 


SI 

I 

li 


■  "*  ^.  W)^'- 


:le^-;^:. 


i 

1 


i'3 

■'1 

)• 

■  i 

I! 

V 

I'-t 

!•. 

/ 

4  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Table  1.— DAYS  OF  OPERATION,  BY  FACTORIES  AND  BY  STATES,  CAMPAIGNS  OF         * 

1909-10  TO  1913-14,  INCLUSIVE—Continued. 


state  and  company. 

1909-10 

1910-11 

1911-12 

1912-13 

1913-14 

Average. 

Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  and  Iowa. 

Days. 

Days. 

Days. 

Days. 

Days. 

Days. 

ChiDoewa  Sugar  Co.  (Wisconsin) 

55 

50 

104 

69 

49 

65 

Rock  County  Sugar  Co.  (Wisconsin) 

64 

75 

119 

87 

50 

79 

Unitei  States  Sugar  Co.  (Wisconsin) 

50 

63 

122 

88 

40 

73 

Wisconsin  Sugar  Co.  ( Wisconsin) 

106 

87 

115 

98 

51 

91 

Iowa  Sugar  Co.  (Iowa) 

45 

89 

117 

101 

66 

■     84 

Minnesota  Supar  Co,  (Afinnft'^ota) ,  . 

50 

32 

57 

86 

71 

59 

Average 

62 

66 

1 

106 

1             88 

1 

1 

i             55 

1 

75 

Northern  Colorado,  Montana,  and  Nebraska. 

American  Beet  Sugar  Co.  (Grand  Island).. 

48 

65 

69 

84 

77 

69 

Great  Western  Sugar  Co.  (Eaton) 

97 

59 

60 

95 

122 

87 

Great  Western  Sugar  Co.  (Greeley) 

79 

58 

59 

99 

114 

82 

Great  Western  Sugar  Co.  (Windsor) 

85 

56 

61 

97 

72 

74 

Great  Western  Sugar  Co.  (Fort  Collins) . . . 

101 

57 

61 

105 

122 

89 

Great  Western  Sugar  Co.  (Loveland) 

101 

67 

67 

105 

119 

92 

Great  Western  Sugar  Co.  (Longmont) 

95 

51 

55 

104 

118 

85 

Great  Western  Sugar  Co.  (Sterling) 

109 

88 

73 

97 

107 

95 

Great  Western  Sugar  Co.  ( Brush) 

82 

63 

60 

87 

87 

76 

Groat  Western  Sugar  Co.  (Fort  Morgan)... 
Great  Western  Sugar  Co.  (Billings) 

85 

64 

87 

78 

79 

87 

83 

107 

96 

114 

97 

Great  Western  Suear  Co  (Scottsblufl) 

48 

93 

112 

125 

95 

Average 

88 

63 

69 

97 

105 

85 

Southern  Colorado  and  Kansas. 

American  Beet  Sugar  Co.  (Rocky  Ford)... 

94 

78 

78 

95 

129 

95 

American  Beet  Sugar  Co.  (Las  Animas). . . 

American  Beet  Sugar  Co.  (Lamar) 

Hollv  Sugar  Co.  (Holly) 

46 

51 

49 

5;i 

64 

59 

6o 

44 

46 

52 

Hollv  Sugar  Co.  (Swink) 

89 

56 

58 

70 

91 

73 

National  Sugar  Manufacturing  Co 

90 

53 

52 

81 

58 

67 

San  Luis  Vallev  Beet  Sugar  Co 

52 

32 

18 

34 

Western  Sugar  &  Land  Co 

102 

88 

98 

107 

96 

98 

Garden  Citv  Suo'ar  &  Land  Co 

28 

71 

37 

45 

Average 

77 

64 

61 

69  1 

72 

69 

Arizona  and  Nevada. 

Nevada  Sugar  Co 

• 

35 

34 

35 

Southwestern  Sugar  &  Land  Co 

40 

55 

44 

51 

48 

Average 

40 

55 

40 

43 

43 

Idaho  and  Oregon. 

Amalgamated  Sugar  Co.  ( Burlev) 

59 

71 

65 

Amalgamated  Sugar  Co.  (La  Grande) 

Utah-Idaho  Sugar  Co.  (Idaho  Palls) 

50 

34 

32 

39 

93 

70 

86 

61 

70 

76 

Utah-Idaho  Sugar  Co.  (Sugar  City) 

100 

62 

109 

92 

81 

89 

Utah-Idaho  Sugar  Co.  ( Blat^k/oot) 

51 

77 

56 

77 

65 

Utah- Idaho  Sugar  Co.  (Namoa) 

11 

1 

11 

Average 

74 

44 

1- 

76 

67 

75 



67 

INTRODUCTION.  9 

Table  l.-DAYS  OF  OPERATION,  BY  FACTORIES  AND  BY  STATES,  CAMPAIGNS  OF 

1909-10  TO  1913-14,  INCLUSIVE—Continued. 


State  and  company. 


Utah. 

Amalgamated  Sugar  Co.  (Ogden). 
Amalgamated  Sugar  Co.  (Logan). 

Lewiston  Sugar  Co 

Utah-Idaho  Sugar  Co.  (Lehi) 

Utah-Idaho  Sugar  Co.  (Garland). 
Utah-Idaho  Sugar  Co.  (Sevier). . . 
Utah-Idaho  Sugar  Co.  ( Payson). . 


Average. 


California. 

Alameda  Sugar  Co 

American  Beet  Sugar  Co.  (Oxnard) . . 

American  Beet  Sugar  Co.  (Chine) 

Anaheim  Sugar  Co 

Holly  Sugar  Co.  (Huntington  Beach). 

Los  Alamitos  Sugar  Co 

Sacramento  Valley  Sugar  Co 

San  Joaquin  Valley  Sugar  Co 

Santa  Ana  Cooperative  Sugar  Co 

Southern  California  Sugar  Co 

Spreckels  Sugar  Co 

Union  Sugar  Co 


Average. 


190&-10 


Days. 
138 
122 
123 
138 
114 


1910-11 


127 


113 
112 
109 


139 

78 


Q) 


113 


0) 


147 


116 


Days. 


87 
74 
66 
99 
76 


80 


93 
113 
109 


143 
79 


0) 


125 


{') 


126 


1911-12 


Days. 

119 
94 
96 
96 
90 
88 


97 


116 

107 

107 

88 

93 

140 

91 


0) 


105 


0) 


113 


121 


1912-13 


Days. 
114 

99 

99 

105 

82 
82 


97 


95 
88 
90 
95 

107 
97 

124 


0) 


98 
112 


0) 


117 


1913-14 


Days. 

108 

100 

111 

78 

101 

73 

59 


Average. 


Days. 

113 
98 
99 

103 
93 
81 
59 


90 


98 


72 
112 

96 
110 
110 
111 

97 


0) 


105 
124 


0) 


139 


108 


102 


0) 


0) 


98 
106 
102 

98 
103 
136 

94 

102 
116 

130 


108 


108 


1  Not  reported. 

« 

Two  factories  in  California  could  not  give  the  number  of  days  in 
operation.  The  10  factories  reporting  in  that  State  had  an  average 
operating  period  of  109  days  during  the  5  years  covered.  It  is  not 
probable  that  the  2  factories  omitted  would  materially  change  this 
average  if  they  were  included.  One  of  these  factories  apparently 
had  very  long  operating  periods,  while  for  the  other  they  were  com- 
paratively short.  Utah  and  Michigan  operated  an  average  of  98  and 
94  days,  respectively.  In  Ohio  and  Indiana  and  northern  Colorado 
the  average  operating  period  for  the  5  years  was  85  days.  The  fac- 
tories in  southern  Colorado  and  in  Idaho  and  Oregon  operated  an 
average  of  less  than  70  days. 

The  longest  period  of  operation  for  any  factory  in  any  year  was 
159  days  by  the  Mount  Clemens  Sugar  Co.  in  Michigan  in  1911-12.  The 
average  for  all  the  factories  of  Michigan  for  that  year  was  123  days. 
The  long  operating  period  in  that  State  in  that  year  was  due  to  an 
unusually  large  supply  of  beets. 

87731—17 2 


A 


\ 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Effort  required  to  secure  beets. — It  is  the  experience  of  most 
factories  that  they  can  not  make  sure  of  a  supply  of  beets  without  con- 
siderable effort.  Thus  it  is  the  custom  for  a  representative  of  the 
factory  to  visit  the  farmers  in  the  vicinity  and  induce  them  to  enter 
into  contracts  to  grow  beets.  These  are  formal  written  contracts  stip- 
ulating the  number  of  acres  the  farmer  will  plant  and  the  prices  the 
factory  will  pay.  The  factories  usually  agree  to  supply  the  seed  at 
a  fixed  price.  The  contracts  provide  that  the  factory  shall  supervise 
the  cultivation  and  the  farmer  agrees  to  cultivate  in  the  manner  pre- 
scribed by  the  factory.  A  condition  that  sometimes  causes  farmers  to 
hesitate  to  enter  into  contracts  is  the  difficulty  encountered  in  securing 
labor.  Since  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  cost  of  growing  beets  is 
due  to  the  expense  of  hand  labor,  farmers  must  have  an  assurance  of 
such' labor  before  they  can  safely  plan  for  a  crop.  The  factories, 
therefore,  generally  agree  to  supply  this  labor.  When  the  factory 
engages  to  supply  hand  labor  it  is  so  stated  in  the  contract  and  the 
price  per  acre  is  stipulated. 

These  efforts  necessary  to  guarantee  a  supply  of  beets  entail  con- 
siderable expense.  This  expense  varies  from  a  cent  or  two  per  100 
pounds  of  sugar  produced  to  sometimes  more  than  25  cents.  A  cost 
exceeding  5  cents  per  100  pounds  is  quite  common.  These  expenses 
per  ton  of  beets  vary  from  5  cents  or  6  cents  to  50  cents  or  60  cents. 
There  are  instances  where  the  cost  per  ton  of  beets  to  the  factory 
for  these  expenses  has  been  as  much  as  $1,  but  this  is  not  usual. 

Section  3.  Development  and  progress  of  the  beet  sugar  industry  in  the 
United  States. 

From  a  review  of  the  beet  sugar  industry,  issued  by  the  United 
States  Department  of  Agriculture  in  1869,  it  appears  that  the  first 
attempt  to  produce  beet  sugar  in  the  United  States  was  an  experi- 
mental one  made  near  Philadelphia  in  1830,  but  no  factory  was 
built.  A  bulletin  issued  by  the  department  in  1872  states  that  prob- 
ably the  earliest  recorded  experiments  in  beet  sugar  made  in  this 
country  were  in  Massachusetts  in  1838.^  It  appears  that  the  manu- 
facturer interested  in  the  Massachusetts  enterprise  was  awarded  a 
silver  medal  for  the  production  of  a  small  quantity  of  sugar  in  that 
year.  The  secretary  of  the  United  States  Beet  Sugar  Industry  in  a 
publication  issued  in  1913  stated  that  in  1852  Bishop  Tyler  of  the 
Mormon  Church  purchased  in  France  machinery  for  a  sugar  fac- 
tory and  shipped  it  to  Salt  Lake  City.^    In  1863  a  factory  was  estab- 

1  U.  S.  Dept.  A.,  Special  Report  on  Beet  Sugar  Industry,  1897. 

2  Beet  Sugar  Industry  of  the  United  States,  p.  6. 


lished  in  Chatsworth,  111.  After  struggling  for  several  years  it  was 
removed  to  Freeport,  111.,  and  later  to  Blackhawk,  Wis.^ 

Bulletin  210,  issued  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Agri- 
culture in  1870,  reported  three  factories  in  operation,  one  at  Chats- 
worth,  III,  one  at  Alvarado,  Cal.,  and  one  in  Sauk  County,  Wis. 
Prior  to  this,  however,  namely,  in  1867,  there  appears  to  have  been 
a  factory  at  Fond  du  Lac,  Wis.  About  1878  a  factory  was  built  in 
Maine,  and  other  factories  had  been  built  in  California  and  possibly 
elsewhere.  Nearly  all  of  these  earlier  factories  were  failures  mainly 
on  account  of  the  unwillingness  or  the  inability  of  farmers  to  pro- 
duce beets  in  sufficient  quantities  and  quality  to  supply  the  factories. 
By  1892  there  appears  to  have  been  only  six  factories  in  operation.^ 
In  1893  investigations  relating  to  the  beet-sugar  industry  by  the  De- 
partment of  Agriculture  were  suspended  and  no  statistics  are  again 
available  until  1897. 

In  1897  there  were  nine  factories  in  operation,  four  in  California, 
two  in  Nebraska,  one  in  New  York,  one  in  New  Mexico  and  one  in 

Utah.« 

Building  of  beet-sugar  factories  in  the  United  States  since 
1889. — ^A  chronological  list  of  the  beet-sugar  factories  in  the  United 
States  has  been  prepared  from  various  sources  of  information  but 
mainly  from  bulletins  issued  by  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture.  In  1909  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  in  response  to  a 
resolution  adopted  by  the  Senate  furnished  a  statement  showing  the 
number  of  beet-sugar  factories  then  in  operation  in  the  United  States 
and  the  number  erected  each  year  since  1896.*  This  document  has 
been  taken  as  the  basis  for  the  information  relative  to  the  erection 
of  factories.  The  factories  built  or  beginning  operation  in  each  year 
since  1889  are  shown  in  the  following  statement: 

1890. 
American  Beet  Sugar  Co.,  Grand  Island,  Nebr. 


1891. 


Chino  Valley  Beet  Sugar  Co.,  Chino,  Cal. 
Utah  Sugar  Co.,  Lehi,  Utah. 

American  Beet  §ugar  Co.,  Norfolk,  Nebr.     (Removed  to  Lamar,  Colo.,  in 
1905.) 

1  University  of  Wisconsin  Bulletin  No.  55. 

2  Beet  Sugar  Industry  of  the  United  States,  Department  of  Agriculture,  1897. 

»Beet  Sugar  Industry  in  the  United  States,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  1897, 
p.  160. 

*  S.  Doc.  22,  61st  Cong.,  1st  sess. 


^' 


^ 


^^»^ 


I 


8  TH^  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

1897. 

Los  Alamitos  Sugar  Co.,  Los  Alamitos,  Cal. 

Pecos  Valley  Beet  Sugar  Co.,  Carlsbad,  N.  Mex.  (Operated  unsuccess- 
fully for  two  years.    It  was  closed  and  later  destroyed  by  fire.) 

First  Beet  Sugar  Co.,  Rome,  N.  Y.  (On  account  of  bad  management  and 
lack  of  beets  died  after  two  years.) 

.  1898. 

California  Beet  Sugar  &  Refining  Co.,  Crockett,  Cal.  (Removed  to  Corco- 
ran, Cal.,  in  1909.) 

Oregon  Sugar  Co.,  La  Grande,  Ore.u^     (Removed  to  Burlev.   Idaho,  in 

1911.) 
Ogden  Sugar  Co.,  Ogden,  Utah. 
Michigan  Sugnr  Co.  (oUl),  Bay  City.  Mich.     (Removed  to  Waverlv,  Iowa 

in  1907.) 
Minnesota  Sugar  Co..  St.  Louis  Park.  Minn.     (Burned  in  1905.) 
Binghamton   Sugar   Co.,    Binghamton,   N.    Y.      (Removed   to   Blackfoot, 

Idaho,  in  1904.) 
American  Beet  Sugar  Co.,  Oxnard.  Cal. 


.     1899. 

Spreckels  Sugar  Co.,  Salines,  Cal. 

Union  Sugar  Co.,  Santa  Maria,  Cal.     ( Betteravia. ) 

Illinois  Sugar  Refining  Co..  Pekin.  111.      (Produced  a  little  sugar  only 

one  year.    Part  of  machinery  moved  to  \'isnlia,  Cal.) 
Colorado  Sugar  Manufacturing  Co.,  Grand  .Junction,  Colo.     (Now  Western 

Sugar  &  Land  Co. ) 

Standard  Beet  Sugar  Co.,  Ames,  Xebr.     (Removed  machinerv  to  Scotts- 

bluff,  Nebr.,  in  1910.)  • 
Bay  City  Sugar  Co.,  Bay  City,  Mich. 
Detroit   Sugar  Co.,   Rochester,   Mich.      (Removed   to   Madison,   Wis.,   in 

1906.) 

Wolverine  Sugar  Co.,  Benton  Harbor,  Mich.     (Moved  to  Canada  in  1901.) 

Peninsular  Sugar  Co.,  Caro,  Mich. 

West  Bay  City  Sugar  Co..  West  Bay  City,  Mich. 

Alma  Sugar  Co.,  Alma,  Mich. 

Holland  Sugar  Co.,  Holland  Mich. 

Kalamazoo  Sugar  Co.,  Kalamazoo.  Mich.     (Moved  to  Chippewa   Wis    in 

1903.) 
D.  C.  Corbin,  Waverly,  Wash. 


1900. 


American  Beet  Sugar  Co.,  Rocky  Ford,  Colo. 

National  Sugar  Co.,  Sugar  City,  Colo. 

Continental  Sugar  Co,,  Fremont,  Ohio. 

Empire  State  Sugar  Co.,  Lyons,  N.  Y.    (Moved  to  Anaheim,  Cal.,  in  1911., 


INTRODUCTION. 


1901. 


Marine  City  Sugar  Co.,  Marine  City,  Mich. 

Lansing  Sugar  Co.,  Lansing,  Mich. 

Saginaw  Sugar  Co.,  Saginaw,  Mich.     (Moved  to  Sterling,  Colo.,  in  1905.) 

Western  Construction  Co.,  Loveland,  Colo. 

Wisconsin  Suga'r  Co.,  Menominee  Falls,  Wis. 

Logan  Sugar  Co.,  Logan,  Utah. 

1902. 

German- American  Cooperative  Beet  Sugar  Co.,  Salzburg,  Mich. 

Sebewaing  Sugar  Co.,  Sebewaing,  Mich. 

Valley  Sugar  Co.,  Carrollton,  Mich. 

Macomb  Sugar  Co.,  Mount  Clemens,  Mich. 

Sanilac  Sugar  Refining  Co.,  Croswell,  Mich. 

Eaton  Sugar  Co.  Eaton  Colo. 

Greeley  Sugar  ^o.,  Greeley,  Colo.  . 

1903. 

Menominee  River  Sugar  Co.,  Menominee,  Mich. 

Tawas  Sugar  Co.,  East  Tawas,  INIich.     (Moved  to  Chaska,  Minn.,  in  1905.) 

Owosso  Sugar  Co.,  Owosso,  Mich. 

Windsor  Sugar  Co.,  Windsor,  Colo. 

Idaho  Sugar  Co.,  Idaho  Falls,  Idaho. 

Utah  Sugar  Co.,  Garland,  Utah. 

St.  Louis  Sugar  Co.,  St.  Louis,  Mich. 

Longmont  Sugar  Co.,  Longmont,  Colo. 

1904. 

Fort  Collins  Sugar  Manufacturing  Co.  Fort  Collins  Colo. 

Fremont  Sugar  Co.,  Sugar  City,  Idaho. 

Rock  County  Sugar  Co.,  Janesville,  Wis.     (Old  Dresden,  Ontario,  plant.) 

Chippewa  Sugar  Co.,  Chippewa  Falls,  Wis. 

Snake  Valley  Sugar  Co.,  Blackfoot,  Idaho. 

1905. 

American  Beet  Sugar  Co.,  Lamar,  Colo. 

Holly  Construction  Co.,  Holly,  Colo.     (Now  Holly  Sugar  Co.) 

Charles  Pope,  Chicago,  Riverdale,  111. 

Sterling  Sugar  Co.,  Sterling,  Colo. 

Continental  Sugar  Co.,  Blissfield,  Mich. 

Amalgamated  Sugar  Co.,  Lewiston,  Utah. 

1906. 

Charlevoix  Sugar  Co.,  Charlevoix,  Mich.     (Moved  to  Ottawa,  Ohio,  in 

1911.) 
Pacific  Sugar  Co.,  Visalia,  Cal. 


I- 

i 


I  .f 


10  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Alta,  Cal.,  Beet  Sugar  Co.,  Hamilton  City,  Cal. 

Utah-Idaho  Sugar  Co.,  Nampa,  Idaho. 

United  States  Sugar  &  Land  Co.,  Garden  City,  Kans. 

United  States  Sugar  Co.,  Madison,  Wis. 

Holly  Construction  Co.,  Swink,  Colo. 

Carver  County  Sugar  Co.,  Chaska,  Minn. 

Billings  Sugar  Co.,  Billings,  Mont. 

Great  Western  Sugar  Co.,  Brush,  Colo.  . 

Great  Western  Sugar  Co.,  Fort  Morgan,  Colo. 

Southwestern  Sugar  &  Land  Co.,  Glendale,  Ariz. 

1907. 

Iowa  Sugar  Co.,  Waverly,  Iowa. 

American  Beet  Sugar  Co.,  Las  Animas,  Colo.  • 

1909. 

Pacific  Sugar  Co.,  Corcoran,  Cal.      (Moved  machinery  from  Crockett, 
Cal.) 

Southern  California  Sugar  Co.,  Santa  Ana,  Cal.     (Moved  from  Wiarton, 
Ontario.) 

1910. 

Scottsbluff  Sugar  Co..  Scottsbluff.  Nebr. 
German- American  Sugar  Co.,  Paulding,  Ohio. 

1911. 

Anaheim  Sugar  Co.,  Anaheim,  Cal. 
Holly  Sugar  Co.,  Huntington  Beach,  Cal. 
San  Louis  Valley  Sugar  Co.,  Monte  Vista,  Colo. 
Continental  Sugar  Co.,  Findlay,  Ohio. 
Utah-Idaho  Sugar  Co.,  Elsinore,  Utah. 

1912. 

Holland-St.  Louis  Sugar  Co.,  Decatur,  Ind. 

Amalgamated  Sugar  Co.,  Burley,  Idaho. 

Toledo  Sugar  Co.,  Toledo,  Ohio. 

Ottawa  Sugar  Co.,  Ottawa,  Ohio. 

Santa  Ana  Cooperative  Sugar  Co.,  Dyer,  Cal. 

Nevada  Sugar  Co.,  Fallon,  Nev. 

1913. 

Utah-Idaho  Sugar  Co.,  Payson,  Utah. 

From  the  foregoing  statement  it  is  seen  that  there  was  a  marked 
impetus  in  factory  building  in  the  late  nineties.  Seven  new  factories 
were  completed  in  1898  and  14  in  1899.  This  expansion  was  marked 
and  steady  down  to  and  including  1906.  Only  two  factories  were 
built  in  each  of  the  years  1907,  1909,  and  1910.    None  was  built  in 


INTBODUCTTON. 


11 


1908.  In  1911  and  1912  there  was  renewed  activity  in  building,  11 
factories  being  completed  in  those  two  years. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  of  the  14  factories  built  in  1899  eight  of 
them  were  in  Michigan.  This  extraordinary  expansion  of  the  indus- 
try in  Michigan  was  no  doubt  due  to  the  enactment  of  a  law  by  the 
legislature  in  1897  providing  for  a  State  sugar  bounty  (see  p.  15). 

An  increase  in  production  naturally  followed  the  increased  num- 
ber of  factories.  Prior  to  1891  there  had  not  been  produced  as  much 
as  3,000  tons  of  sugar  in  any  one  year.  In  1891  the  production  was 
5,400  tons.  By  1897  this  had  increased  to  about  40,000  tons,  and  by 
3900  the  production  reached  nearly  83,000  tons.  The  increase  in 
production  and  its  relation  to  consumption  are  shown  in  Table  3 

(see  p.  17).^ 

Location  of  beet-sugar  factories  in  1914. — There  were  78  beet- 
sugar  factories  in  the  United  States  in  1914,  located  in  17  States,  as 
follows : 


Arizona 1      Montanal 

California 13 

Colorado 16 


Idaho 5 

Illinois 1 

Indiana 1 

Iowa 1 

Kansas 1 

Michigan ^ 16 

Minnesota 1 


2 

1 

5 

7 

1 

4 

Wyoming 1 


Nebraska 

Nevada 

Ohio 

Utah 

Washington. 
Wisconsin 


Total 78 


Ten  of  the  above  States  have  only  1  factory  each,  and  one  State 
has  only  2.  The  four  principal  centers  of  production  are  Michigan 
and  northern  Ohio,  Colorado,  northern  Utah  and  southern  Idaho, 
and  southern  California.  In  comparatively  recent  years  there  were 
factories  in  New  York  and  Oregon,  but  these  have  all  been  aban- 
doned or  removed  to  other  States.  The  factory  in  Washington  has 
not  been  in  operation  for  several  years.  One  at  Holly,  Colo.,  was 
removed  to  Sheridan,  Wyo.,  in  1915.  The  i)lant  at  Glendale,  Ariz., 
has  never  been  able  to  secure  a  sufficient  quantity  of  beets,  and  in  the 
season  of  1914-15  some  experiments  were  made  with  sugar  cane. 

Growth  of  production. — Naturally  the  growth  of  production  has 
kept  pace  with  the  increased  number  of  factories.    The  annual  pro- 

*  Tonnage  figures  taken  from  Final  Report,  Industrial  Commission,  p.  84. 


f 
•^1 


iit    i 


i 


ft 


%r:kl 


m 


•I   ■ 


■:i    I 


12  THE  BEET  SUGAE  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

auction  of  beet  sugar  in  the  United  States  from  1889-90  to  1914-15 
inclusive,  is  shown  in  Table  2  below :  ' 

Table  2.-ANNUAL  PRODUCTION  OF  BEET  SUGAR  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  FROM 

1889-flO  TO  1914-15.  INCLUSIVE. 


INTEODUOTION. 


13 


Year. 


Produc- 
tion. 


Year. 


1889-90.. 

1890-91.. 

1891-92.. 

1892-93. . 

1893-94. . . 

1894-95... 

1895-96... 

1896-97... 

1897-98... 

1898-99... 

1899-1900. 

1900-1901. 

1901-2.... 


S?iort  tons. 
2,467 
3,874 
5,999 
13,460 
22,  UA 
22,  .503 
32,726 
42,040 
45,246 
36,368 
81,729 
68,082 
184,606 


1902-3. 

1903-4.. 

1904-5. . 

1905-6. . 

1906-7.. 

1907-8. . 
1908-9.. 
1909-10- 
1910-11. 
1911-12. 
191^13. 
1913-14. 
1914-15. 


Produc- 
tion. 


Short  tons. 
218,406 
240,604 
242,113 
312,921 
483,612 
463,628 
425,884 
1509,655 
1510,821 
» 585, 385 
»  688, 174 
'  726, 764 
722,054 


in  process  at  the  end  of  the  year  becomes  pSTof  the  prodSn  for  thTn?x?  vP^^^^Th.^rr,'  ''^^  ^1^^ 
figures  of  the  Commission  include  first  those  taken  dirPPtl v  frnm  tin  >P«  i  '^f^l'  ^^®  *°*^^  production 
either  an  estimate  or  returns  Scured 7rora  oTher  so^^^^  fnrinr.  nlr?®  company  and,  second, 

the  latter  representing  only  a  few  small  faetoriP<f  For  Inf  f  holoo?o  i?^^'^^^®^  nearly  all  the  suear  produced, 
mission  covered  morl  than  99  per^nt  o/S^^^^  secure(f  by  the  Com ' 


Federal  Trade  Commission. 

Total 
production 
as  stated 
by  De- 
partment 
of  Agri- 
culture. 

Year. 

Secured 
from  books 

of* 
companies 
or  reported 
to  the  Com- 
mission. 

Returns 
from  other 

sources 

'  or 
estimated. 

Total  pro- 
duction. 

Difference. 

1909-10 

Tons. 

496,690 

498,820 

580.553 

684,674 

723,264 

Tons.      \       Tons. 

Tons. 

512,469 

510, 172 

599,500 

692,556 

733,401 

722,054 

Tons. 

1910-11 

12, 9oo 

12,001 

4,832 

3,500 

3,500 

510,821  1 
5.85,385 
aS.S,  174 
72G,  764 

2,814 

1911-12 

649 

1912-13 

14,115 

1913-14 

4,382 

1914-15 

6,637 

1 

Prior  to  1889  the  production  of  beet  sugar  exceeded  1,000  tons 
m  only  two  years.  From  the  foregoing  table  it  is  seen  that  in  26 
years  the  production  has  increased  from  less  than  2,500  ton«  to 


.i 


more  than  700,000  tons.  The  production  in  1892  more  than  doubled 
that  of  the  preceding  year.  There  was  a  considerable  increase 
until  in  1901  the  production  was  more  than  twice  as  much  as  it 
had  been  in  any  year  prior  to  that  time.  From  1902  to  1908  the 
production  more  than  doubled.  The  remarkable  increase  beginning 
in  the  late  nineties  was  due  to  various  causes.  The  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture  and  various  State  experiment  stations 
had  conducted  campaigns  of  education  among  the  farmers  and 
favorable  legislation  by  the  United  States  and  by  some  of  the 
States  had  greatly  encouraged  the  building  of  factories. 

Section  4.  Governmental  encouragement  of  the  industry. 

The  development  of  the  beet-sugar  industry  in  the  United  States 
has  resulted  largely  from  direct  encouragement  by  the  Federal  and 
State  Governments.  The  successful  results  in  France  and  Germany 
no  doubt  first  suggested  an  effort  to  develop  beet-sugar  manufac- 
ture in  this  country.  According  to  the  final  report  of  the  Industrial 
Commission  (p.  84),  the  beginning  of  the  beet-sugar  industry  in 
this  country  dates  from  1862,  though  soihe  experiments  were  made 
as  early  as  1835.  The  principal  difficulties  to  overcome  were  agri- 
cultural. The  American  farmer  did  not  understand  the  cultivation 
of  the  beet  and  it  was  not  definitely  known  in  what  particular  sec- 
tions of  the  country  the  best  results  might  be  obtained.  The  United 
States  Department  of  Agriculture  and  various  State  agricultural 
colleges  and  experiment  stations  began  to  supply  seed  to  farmers 
and  to  give  them  instructions  as  to  planting  and  cultivation.  These 
experiments  were  conducted  in  many  of  the  States  and  covered  a 
period  of  several  years.  In  fact,  experimental  work  is  still  being 
done  through  governmental  agencies. 

Encouragement  through  federal  tariff  legislation. — Since 
1883  various  Federal  tariff  acts  have  afforded  a  large  measure  of  pro- 
tection to  the  sugar  industry.  The  act  of  1883  provided  for  a  rate 
of  $1.40  per  100  pounds  on  sugars  not  above  No.  13  Dutch  stand- 
ard in  color  and  not  above  75°  polariscope  test.^  Under  this  law 
sugar  testing  96°  was  subject  to  a  duty  of  $2.24  per  100  pounds. 
These  rates  were  in  effect  until  1891.  By  the  tariff  act  of  1890 
(effective  Apr.  1,  1891)  sugar  not  above  16  Dutch  standard  in  color 

was  admitted  free  of  duty.     By  the  same  act,  however,  there  was 

■ — t — 

1  The  Dutch  standard  consists  of  a  series  of  crystallized  sugar  samples  of  approxi- 
mately equal  j?radations  of  color  ranging  from  No.  7,  which  is  very  dark,  to  No.  25,  which 
is  almost  white.  The  color  grade  of  any  given  sample  Is  determined  by  a  comparison 
with  the  standard  series  prepared  by  an  establishment  in  Holland  for  the  sugar  trade. 
*  *  *  No.  16  Dutch  standard  is  technically  the  color  distinction  in  the  United  States 
between  refined  and  raw  sugar.  (The  Department  of  Commerce,  Circular  of  Bureau  of 
Standards  No.  44,  p.  50.) 

The  degree  of  polarization  means  the  per  cent  of  sucrose.  Thus,  by  96°  sugar  is 
nieant  that  96  per  cent  of  the  weight  of  tlie  mass  tested  is  sucrose. 


^' 


^' 


,^,«SF?^?^raF*  ^'©»  ■ 


»    •: 


14 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY   IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


INTRODUCTION. 


15 


|tl| 


:!.i    ^  t 


provided  a  bounty  of  2  cents  per  pound  on  domestic  sugar  testing  not 
less  than  90°  polariscope  test  and  a  bounty  of  IJ  cents  per  pound  on 
sugar  testing  less  than  90°,  but  not  less  than  80°.  Thus  the  bounty 
provision  of  1890  afforded  almost  as  much  protection  to  the  domestic 
sugar  grower  as  was  secured  under  the  previous  tariff. 

In  1894  the  bounty  law  was  repealed  and  an  ad  valorem  duty  of 
40  per  cent  was  levied  on  all  sugars  above  16  Dutch  standard  in 
color  and  one-tenth  of  a  cent  per  pound  additional  on  sugar  from 
boimty-paying  countries.  The  40  per  cent  ad  valorem  was  equiva- 
lent to  1  cent  per  pound  on  sugar  selling  for  2^  cents  per  pound  in 
the  foreign  market. 

By  the  act  of  1897  the  duty  was  fixed  at  0.95  of  a  cent  per  pound 
on  sugar  not  above  16  Dutch  Standard  and  not  above  75°  polariscope 
test.  The  additions  for  the  higher  tests  made  the  rate  on  96°  sugar 
1.685  cents  per  pound.  These  rates  remained  until  March,  1914,  ex- 
cept as  to  sugar  from  the  Philippines  and  Cuba.  ' 

By  the  act  of  March  8, 1902,  the  rate  on  Philippine  sugar  was  made 
25  per  cent  less  than  the  general  rate.  The  reciprocity  treaty  with 
Cuba,  ratified  December  27,  1903,  provided  that  the  duty  on  Cuban 
sugar  should  be  20  per  cent  less  than  the  general  rate. 

The  tariff  act  of  1913  fixed  a  rate  of  0.71  of  a  cent  per  pound  on 
sugar  not  above  75°  polariscope  test  and  twenty-six  one-thousandths 
of  a  cent  for  each  additional  degree.  This  made  the  duty  on  96° 
sugar  1.256  cents  per  pound.  These  rates  became  effective  March  1, 
1914.  This  act  repeals  that  portion  of  the  Cuban  reciprocity  treaty 
relating  to  sugar.  Under  the  Cuban  reciprocity  treaty  the  duty  on 
Cuban  sugar  testing,  not  more  than  96°  was  at  the  time  of  its  ratifi- 
cation 1.348  cents  per  pound.  Since  March  1, 1914,  the  rate  on  Cuban 
sugar  has  been  1.005  cents  per  pound. 

Encouragement  through  State  legislation. — Several  States 
have  enacted  laws  to  encourage  the  sugar  industry,  some  by  exempt- 
ing property  employed  in  its  manufacture  from  taxation  for  a  period 
of  years,  and  some  by  bounties.  There  are  now  no  State  bounty  laws 
in  effect.  They  either  originally  covered  a  stated  period  or  they  have 
been  repealed  or  declared  unconstitutional. 

Idaho. — In  1903  the  Legislature  of  Idaho  passed  an  act  providing 
for  a  bounty  of  one-half  cent  per  pound  for  sugar  manufactured  dur- 
ing the  year  1904.  There  has  been  no  further  legislation  on  the 
subject. 

Kansas. — In  1905  a  law  was  enacted  providing  for  a  bounty  of  $1 
per  ton  for  all  sugar  beets  grown  within  the  State  and  actually  used 
in  the  manufacture  of  sugar.  An  appropriation  of  $10,000  was  made 
for  the  payment  of  bounties  during  the  year  1906-7. 

Iowa.—\TL  1889  the  property  of  sugar  manufacturers,  including  the 
capital  invested  and  the  personal  property  used  in  connection  with 


the  business,  was  exempted  from  taxation  until  January  1, 1910.  The 
act  was  amended  in  1907  extending  the  period,  of  exemption  to  Janu- 
ary 1,  1917. 

Minnesota.— In  1895  the  State  of  Minnesota  provided  a  bounty  of 
1  cent  per  pound  on  sugar  manufactured  in  that  State.  In  1899 
this  act  was  amended  so  as  to  limit  the  amount  of  money  that  could 
be  paid  out  in  any  one  year  to  not  exceeding.  $40,000.  The  act  also 
provided  that  it  should  remain  in  effect  only  until  the  1st  day  of 
January,  1901.  The  State  auditor  refused  to  issue  warrants  for  the 
sugar  bounty  provided  for  in  the  law  of  1895  and  as  amended  in  1899 
for  the  year  1900.  The  action  of  the  auditor  was  reviewed  by  the 
supreme  court  of  the  State  and  in  1903  the  law  was  declared  uncon- 
stitutional.^ 

Michigan. — In  1897  the  Legislature  of  Michigan  enacted  a  law  pro- 
viding for  a  bounty  of  2  cents  per  pound  on  all  sugar  produced  within 
the  State.  The  validity  of  this  law  was  questioned  by  the  attorney 
general  of  the  State  and  no  bounties  were  paid  except  for  one  or  two 
years.  In  Michigan  Sugar  Co.  v.  Auditor  General,  ^  it  was  held  that 
that  section  of  the  law  providing  for  the  payment  of  a  bounty  for 
the  encouragement  of  the  beet-sug:ar  industry  was  unconstitutional. 

Nebraska. — A  law  of  Nebraska  enacted  in  1895  offered  a  bounty 
for  the  manufacture  of  sugar.  It  appears  that  the  legislature  failed 
to  make  appropriations  to  pay  these  bounties.  In  Oxnard  Beet  Sugar 
Co.  V.  Nebraska,^  it  was  held  in  1905  that  the  fact  that  the  manufac- 
turers paid  producers  high  prices  for  beets  (presumably  because  they 
expected  a  bounty)  did  not  create  in  favor  of  such  manufacturers  an 
obligation  against  the  State. 

Ne2v  York. — In  May.  1897,  the  Legislature  of  New  York  passed  an 
act  providing  for  the  payment  of  1  cent  per  pound  to  sugar  manu- 
facturers who  paid  the  grower  not  less  than  $5  per  ton  for  beets,  and 
appropriated  $25,000  for  making  the  act  effective.  In  1898  $50,000 
was  appropriated  for  this  purpose.  Again,  in  1900,  there  was  an 
appropriation  of  $50,000,  and  one  of  $100,000  in  1901.  In  1902  an 
act  was  passed  appropriating  $50,000  to  pay  bounties  to  beet-sugar 
manufacturers  of  one-half  cent  per  pound,  and  provided  that  the 
bounties  in  1903  and  1904  should  also  be  one-half  cent  per  pound. 
In  1904,  $60,000  were  appropriated  for  beet-sugar  bounties.  No  ap- 
propriations have  been  made  since  that  time.  In  June,  1905,  another 
bounty  act  was  passed  which  provided  that  appropriations  thereafter 
made  to  encourage  beet  culture  should  be  distributed  to  the  manu- 
facturers and  beet  growers,  the  latter  to  receive  $1  per  ton  for  beets. 
It  appears  that  no  appropriation  was  ever  made  under  this  act  and 
in  1908  the  act  of  1905  was  repealed. 


191  Minn.,  30. 


2  124  Mich.,  674. 


8  79  Nebr.,  57-66. 


16 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 


INTRODUCTION. 


17 


I 


-1  '■  >■ 


The  effect  of  tariffs  and  bounties  on  the  industry. — There  is 
no  question  that  Federal  tariffs  and  in  some  cases  State  bounties 
have  greatly  stimulated  the  beet-sugar  industry.  The  beginning  of 
the  construction  of  several  factories  in  1898  and  their  completion  in 
1899  (see  p.  8)  was  no  doubt  largely  due  to  the  enactment  of  the 
Michigan  bounty  law.  This  State  bounty  law  in  connection  with  the 
Federal  tariff  law  of  1897  afforded  a  large  measure  of  encourage- 
ment in  that  State.  Following  the  enactment  of  the  bounty  law 
in  the  State  of  New  York  a  factory  was  built  in  1897,  another  in 
1898,  and  another  in  1900.  It  is  said  that  the  last  of  these  factories 
was  remove^  from  the  State  because  of  the  failure  of  the  State  to 
pay  bounties.  '    , 

For  several  years  following  the  tariff  act  of  1897  there  was  a 
remarkable  expansion  of  the  industry  in  what  are  now  the  principal 
beet  sugar  producing  sections  of  the  country.  Down  to  the  time  of 
the  reciprocity  treaty  with  Cuba  in  1903  the  duty  of  $1.68J  per  100 
pounds  on  raw  sugar  testing  96°  afforded  great  advantage  to  this 
industry,  and  even  after  the  Cuban  reciprocity  treaty  when  the  duty 
was  reduced  to  about  $1.35  per  100  pounds  the  advantage  was  still 
very  great. 

To  what  extent  the  large  measure  of  protection  to  the  industry 
encouraged  careless  selection  of  localities  for  factories  can  not  be 
stated.  It  is  probable  that  the  expectation  of  a  wide  margin  of 
profit  provided  for  in  the  tariff  had  such  a  tendency  to  foster  care- 
lessness in  the  selection  of  factory  locations.  A  number  of  factories 
have  been  built  without  particular  regard  to  the  quantity  and  qual- 
ity of  beets  available,  apparently  with  the  expectation  that  the  busi- 
ness would  be  so  profitable  that  extraordinary  inducements  could  be 
offered  to  farmers.  Naturallv  an  undue,  artificial  stimulus  also  re- 
suits  in  a  lack  of  thorough  care  in  equipping  and  operating  fac- 
tories. 

Section  5.  Consumption  of  sugar  in  continental  United  States. 

The  per  capita  consumption  of  sugar  in  continental  United  States 
is  greater  than  that  of  any  other  country  except  Great  Britain. 
Figures  for  consumption  include  sugar  used  in  any  form.  There  are 
no  figures  indicating  the  amount  of  sugar  per  capita  used  as  such  for 
strictly  domestic  purposes.  It  is  well  known  that  a  large  percentage 
of  the  sugar  consumption  is  in  the  form  of  candies  and  other  confec- 
tions, preserves,  jams,  etc.  Furthermore,  there  is  considerable  sugar 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  tobacco  and  in  various  other  wavs.  The 
total  consumption  of  sugar  in  continental  United  States,  the  source 
of  supply,  the  per  capita  consumption  in  the  United  States,  and  the 
per  cent  of  the  world's  production  consumed  in  the  United  States, 
from  1865  to  1914,  are  shown  in  Table  3  below : 


TABLE  3 -consumption  OF  SUGAR  IN  CONTINENTAL  UNITED  STATES,  1865-1914. 
[Statistical  Abstract:  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce.] 


Year. 


1876. 
1877- 
1878- 
1879- 
1880. 
1881- 
1882. 
1883. 
1884- 
188.5- 
1886. 
1887. 
1888. 
1889- 
1890. 
1891. 
1892. 
1893. 
1894. 
1895. 
1896. 
1897. 
1898. 
1899- 
1900. 
1901- 
1902. 
1903. 
1904. 
1905. 
1906. 
1907. 
1908. 
1909. 
1910. 
1911. 
1912. 
1913. 
1914. 


Total  consump- 
tion in  United 
States  (conti- 
nental).! 


Pounds. 

631,397,214 
1,008,603,114 

880,009,330 
1,155,275,475 
1,328,534,744 
1,261,941,665 
1,442,470,531 
1,649,834,977 
1,670,246,701 
1,782,063,238 
1,904,621,896 
1,598,951,344 
1,811,268,726 
1,645,604,810 
2,002,953,025 
1,970,221,478 
2,201,187,313 
2,142,904,249 
2,426,981,787 
2,975,026,610 
2.687,818,446 
2,818,144,031 
3,125,276,345 
3,016,360,183 
3,091,376,231 
3,192,735,098 
3,875,344,121 
3,919,671,292 
4,262,589,311 
4,936,382,960 
4,321,674,363 
4,494,681,898 
5,598,391,028 
3,468,736,934 
4,604,811,191 
4,477,175,236 
5,585,008,783 
5,018,972,657 
6,380,165,502 
5,661,900,411 
6,025,772,362 
6,491,294,803 
7,089,668,935 
6,590,822,991 
7,283,363,552 
7,360,130,811 
7, 235, 972, 746 
7,862,155,291 
8,234,477,135 
8, 793, 794, 928 


Percentage   of  consumption   sup- 
plied by- 


Domestic. 


1.9 

2.1 

5.8 

4.5 

7.7 

7.0 

12.4 

9.5 

8.1 

6.2 

7.5 

10.8 

11.0 

9.7 

12.5 

9.2 

13.0 

8.0 

13.2 

10.2 

8.5 

10.8 

6.2 

12.5 

11.3 

9.6 

13.0 

9.8 

12.3 

13.3 

17.9 

13.6 

13.0 

23.0 

13.9 

10.9 

14.3 

21.9 

18.5 

17.8 

21.0 

21.4 

21.3 

26.0 

21.8 

19.0 

23.0 

23.2 

20.8 

22.7 


Noncon- 
tiguous 
territory. 


Foreign 
countries. 


11.1 

15.0 
14.7 
12.7 
12.3 
16.2 
14.9 
16.4 
12.3 
10.6 
13.2 
12.6 
14.2 
14.8 
11.9 
14.1 
14.4 
16.3 
15.9 
18.8 
18.9 
20.5 
19.1 
20.5 
16.5 
17.6 

9.0 
11.2 
12.0 
10.7 

9.2 
12.9 
10.5 
18.1 
13.5 
14.0 
14.9 
18.2 
16.0 
18.7 
19.6 
18.9 
17.7 
24.0 
21.9 
25.2 
26.0 
30.2 
24.7 
21.3 


87.0 
82.9 
79.5 
82.8 
80.0 
76.8 
72.7 
74.1 
79.6 
83.2 
79.3 
76.6 
74.8 
75.5 
75.6 
76.7 
72.6 
75.7 
70.9 
71.0 
72.6 
68.7 
74.7 
67.0 
72.2 
72.8 
78.0 
79.0 
75.7 
76.0 
72.9 
73.5 
76.5 
58.9 
72.6 
75.1 
70.8 
59.9 
65.5 
63.5 
59.4 
59.7 
61.0 
50.0 
56.3 
55.8 
51.0 
46.6 
54.5 
56.0 


Per  capita 
consump- 
tion in 
United 
States.i 


Pounds. 
18.17 
28.45 
24.30 
31.24 
35.19 
32.73 
36.47 
40.64 
40.08 
41.64 
43.33 
35.42 
39.07 
34.59 
40.99 
39.46 
42.89 
40.82 
45.20 
54.18 
47.87 
49.09 
53.26 
50.29 
50.44 
50.72 
60.70 
60.22 
64.24 
72.99 
62.69 
63.98 
78.20 
47.55 
61.98 
58.91 
71.96 
63.35 
78.92 
68.66 
71.66 
75.74 
81.19 
74.11 
80.43 
79.90 
77.15 
82.43 
85.04 
89.14 


Per  cent  of 

world's 

product 

consumed 

in  United 

States. 


14.3 

22.0 

17.4 

24.5 

24.9 

23.3 

24.4 

28.1 

24.8 

25.4 

29.0 

24.3 

29.8 

22.7 

25.0 

27.1 

26.9 

24.9 

25.5 

28.4 

24.5 

27.6 

27.5 

27.4 

27.7 

25.0 

27.6 

27.5 

29.4 

29.9 

24.3 

27.1 

31.4 

20.0 

25.7 

23.1 

25.7 

20.4 

28.7 

24.5 

28.3 

20.8 

21.9 

21.1 

22.3 

22.0 

19.0 

22.1 

20.2 

21.1 


^' 


1  Expressed  mainly  in  terms  of  raw  sugar. 


.d^ 


-*^^vt. 


ta^im 


18 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


INTRODUCTION. 


19 


ff 


i 

ire 


The  per  capita  consumption  has  increased  from  18  pounds  in  1865 
to  89  pounds,  or  nearly  400  per  cent,  in  1914.  Fifty  years  ago  87 
per  cent  of  the  sugar  consumed  in  this  country  was  imported.  This 
proportion  has  gradually  fallen  until  it  is  now  less  than  60  per  cgnt. 
Parallel  with  this  relative  decrease  in  the  proportion  of  the  total 
consumption  imported  there  has  been  of  course  a  corresponding  in- 
crease in  domestic  production.  The  sugar  supplied  to  the  United 
States  by  its  noncontiguous  territory,  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  the 
Philippines,  and  Porto  Rico,  is  now  about  21  per  cent  of  the  total  con- 
sumption, and  the  percentage  supplied  by  continental  United  States, 
including  both  beet  and  cane,  is  somewhat  greater. 

At  the  present  time  practically  all  the  sugar  consumed  in  this 
country  is  produced  in  the  United  States,  including  its  possessions, 
and  in  Cuba.  The  imports  from  other  foreign  countries  than  Cuba 
are  comparatively  insignificant. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  approximately  one-fifth  of  all  the 
commercial  sugar  of  the  world  is  consumed  in  the  United  States. 

Percentage  of  consumption  supplied  by  domestic  beet-sugar 
FACTORIES.— Practically  all  the  beet  sugar  made  in  this  country  is 
consumed  here.  From  50  to  55  per  cent  of  the  sugar  consumed  in 
the  United  States  is  importecl ;  the  remainder  comes  in  about  equal 
proportions  from  beets  and  Louisiana  cane,  and  from  Hawaii,  the 
Philippines,  and  Porto  Rico.  The  percentage  of  the  total  consump- 
tion produced  in  domestic  beet  factories  and  from  Louisiana  cane  for 
the  last  16  years  is  shown  in  Table  4  below : 

Table  4.— PERCENTAGE  OF  THE  TOTAL  CONSUMPTION  OF  SUGAR  IN  THE  UNITED 
STATES  PRODUCED  FROM  DOMESTIC  CANE  AND  BEETS,  1899  TO  1914,  INCLUSIVE. 
[Computed  from  the  Statistical  Abstract,  1914,  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce.] 


Year. 


Louisi- 
ana cane. 


Beet. 


1899 
1900 
1001 
1902 
1903 
1904 
1905. 
1906. 


12.3 

7.2 

11.2 

14.5 

11.7 

9.3 

13.0 

11.8 

L6 
3.7 
3.1 
7.4 
6.8 
8.5 
8.0 
9.6 


Total. 


13.9 
10.9 
14.3 
21.9 
18.5 
17.8 
21.0 
21.4 


Year. 


1907 
1908 
190^ 
1910 
1911. 
1912. 
1913. 
1914 


Louisi- 
ana cane. 

Beet. 

7.7 

13.6 

11.9 

14.1 

n.4 

11.7 

10.2 

13.9 

9.8 

14.1 

9.2 

15.3 

3.9 

17.6 

6.7 

16.7 

Total. 


21.3 
26.0 
23.1 
24.1 
23.9 
24.5 
21.6 
23.4 


It  should  be  pointed  out  that  the  totals  in  the  above  table  do  not 
exactly  agree  with  the  percentage  of  consumption  supplied  from 
domestic  sources  as  shown  in  Table  3.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  in 
the  latter  table  the  exports  of  domestic  sugar  have  been  deducted, 
while  in  Table  4  they  have  not.  The  purpose  of  Table  4  is  to  show 
what  percentage  of  the  total  consumption  is  produced  in  beet-sugar 
factories. 


It  appears  from  the  table  that  in  recent  years  domestic  beet-sugar 
factories  have  produced  enough  to  meet  about  15  per  cent  of  the 
domestic  demand.  In  fact,  the  proportion  is  somewhat  greater  than 
this.  About  half  of  the  domestic  consumption  is  reported  in  terms 
of  raw  sugar,  while  all  of  the  beet-sugar  production  is  reported  in 
terms  of  refined  sugar.  The  proportion  of  the  consumption  pro- 
duced in  the  beet  factories  is  therefore  a  little  greater  than  the  figures 
in  the  foregoing  table  would  indicate.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  dur- 
ing the  past  eight  years  the  increase  in  the  production  of  beet  sugar 
has  just  about  kept  pace  with  the  increased  total  consmnption. 


•f 


» 


1^" 

i 

I 

Y. 

i 


■-^^^^ 


BEET  GROWING. 


21 


flfi'i  ! 


\^ 


If 


■|  ■:!■ 


CHAPTER  II. 
BEET  GROWING. 

I.  YIELD  AND  QUALITY  OF  BEETS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Section  1.  Introduction. 

The  widely  extended  area  in  which  the  sugar  beet  can  be  grown  in 
this  country,  the  methods  of  cultivation,  and  the  particular  problems 
that  may  confront  the  grower  are  not  discussed  in  this  report.  All 
these  matters  have  been  thoroughly  studied  by  the  United  States  De- 
partment of  Agriculture,  and  a  vast  amount  of  information  relating 
to  every  phase  of  beet  culture  is  available  to  anyone  interested.  The 
discussion  of  beet  culture  in  this  report  is  confined  to  the  concrete 
results  and  the  economic  aspects  of  this  branch  of  farming. 

The  farmer  is  the  most  important  factor  in  the  beet-sugar  industry. 
He  must  supply  beets  in  sufficient  quantity  and  quality  or  else  the 
beet-sugar  manufacturer  can  not  exist.  Sugar-beet  culture  demands 
closer  vigilance  on  the  part  of  the  farmer  than  is  necessary  to  grow 
the  ordinary  farm  crops,  such  as  grain,  hay,  etc.  In  a  revised  edition 
of  Farmers'  Bulletin  52,  issued  by  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture  in  1910,  the  high  class  of  farming  necessary  to  grow 
sugar  beets  successfully  was  pointed  out  in  the  following  language: 

The  successful  growing  of  sugar  beets  is  an  art  that  one 
acquires  by  practice.  The  farmer  who  has  made  a  success  of 
raising  other  crops  wull  quite  often  fail  at  first  in  this  one,  as 
the  methods  of  cultivating  ordinary  crops  do  not  apply  in  the 
case  of  sugar  beets.  Certain  directions  for  the  preparation  of 
the  soil,  the  planting,  thinning,  and  harvesting  must  be  followed 
in  beet  culture.  Although  it  is  possible  to  raise  sugar  beets 
with  little  regard  to  these  directions,  such  a  crop  will  usually 
fail  to  pay  for  itself,  either  because  the  yield  is  too  small  or  the 
sugar  content  of  the  beets  too  low  to  meet  factory  requirements. 
In  commercial  beet  growing,  therefore,  carelessness  leads  quickly 
to  failure,  while  careful  regard  for  details  spells  success.  Suc- 
cess comes  at  first  from  following  the  advice  of  successful  grow- 
ers, and  later  it  may  be  augmented  by  practical  experience. 

From  the  foregoing  and  from  numerous  other  statements  embody- 
ing the  experience  of  experts  and  of  practical  farmers,  it  appears 
that  beets  are  one  of  the  most  exacting  crops  grown.    The  land  must 
20 


be  adapted  not  only  to  produce  beets  in  reasonably  large  quantities 
but  of  such  quality  as  to  insure  a  high  sugar  content.  Furthermore, 
the  sugar  content  must  be  of  a  degree  of  purity  high  enough  to  guar- 
antee its  profitable  conversion  into  edible  sugar.  Probably  no  other 
crop  reflects  more  fully  improper  or  careless  methods  of  culture  or 
the  neglect  of  doing  everything  at  the  proper  time. 
Section  2.  Yield  of  sugar  beets  per  acre. 

The  quantity  of  beets  grown  per  acre  varies  according  to  the 
variety  of  beets,  quality  of  seed,  quality  of  land,  methods  of  culti- 
vation and  moisture  conditions.  There  is  a  wide  variation  of  pro- 
duction in  different  sections  of  the  country  and  even  among  different 
growers  in  the  same  section.  Thus  production  frequently  ranges 
from  6  or  T  tons  to  15  tons  per  acre,  and  in  extreme  cases  the  range 
is  much  wider.  In  some  localities  a  yield  of  20  tons  per  acre  is  not 
uncommon.  The  average  for  the  United  States  has  been  as  much 
as  11  tons  per  acre  but  once  in  11  years.  Table  5  below  shows  the 
average  yield  per  acre  in  the  principal  beet-growing  States  and  for 
the  United  States  from  1904  to  1914  inclusive : 

Table  6.-AVERAGE  YIELD  OF  SUGAR  BEETS  PER  ACRE  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  BY 

STATES,  1904  TO  1914,  INCLUSIVE. 

•    [Compiled  from  bulletins  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agrlculture.l 


Year. 


Califor- 
nia. 


Colorado.  Michigan. 


Utah  and 
Idaho. 


Wiscon- 
sin. 


Other 
States. 


United 
States. 


I 


1  Included  with  "Other  States." 

The  statistics  for  Utah  and  Idaho  have  been  combined  in  this  table 
and  in  all  other  similar  tables  because  of  their  proximity  and  the 
interrelation  of  factory  interests.  From  the  above  table  it  is  seen 
that  the  highest  average  yields  are  in  Colorado  and  Utah  and  Idaho. 
In  these  States  taken  together  the  average  is  above  the  average  for 
the  United  States  for  every  year  during  the  period  covered  except 
one.  In  California  the  average  for  the  State  was  above  the  average 
for  the  United  States  for  6  years  in  11.  In  Wisconsin  the  aver- 
age was  above  that  for  the  United  States  for  7  years  out  of  10. 

87731—17 3 


% 


N 


ill         i" 


|U 


saa 


22 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  IHTDUSTBY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


The  average  in  Michigan  is  very  low.  In  only  one  year  during  the 
period  covered  was  the  average  in  that  State  equal  to  the  average 
for  the  United  States. 

Section  3.  Quality  of  beets. 

Special  emphasis  should  be  placed  on  the  importance  of  the  quality 
of  beets.  Unless  the  quality  is  of  a  fair  degree  it  does  not  pay  to 
extract  the  sugar.  There  are  two  elements  of  quality,  namely,  the 
sugar  content  and  the  degree  of  purity.  A  considerable  percentage 
of  the  total  weight  of  the  beets  consists  of  soluble  solids  and  most 
of  these  solids  consists  of  pure  sugar.  The  per  cent  of  the  total 
weight  of  the  beets  that  is  pure  sugar  is  called  the  sugar  content. 
The  per  cent  of  the  total  soluble  solids  that  is  pure  sugar  is  called 
the  degree  or  percentage  of  purity.  This  is  discussed  on  the  follow- 
ing page. 

Under  existing  conditions  it  does  not  pay  to  work  beets  testing 
below  10  or  12  per  cent  of  sugar.  Indeed,  an  average  content  as 
low  as  this  probably  could  not  be  profitably  worked.  Some  factories 
reserve  the  right  to  reject  beets  testing  below  11  or  12  per  cent.  The 
average  should  be  well  above  12  per  cent.  Likewise,  the  percentage 
of  purity  must  not  be  too  low  because  the  lower  the  per  cent  of 
pure  sugar  in  the  soluble  solids  the  higher  is  the  relative  cost  of 
extraction.  Some  factories  reserve  the  right  to  reject  beets  show- 
ing a  purity  below  80  per  cent,  and  probably  no  factory  would  care 
to  run  on  beets  having  an  average  below  that  percentage. 

Percentage  of  sugar  in  beets. — The  sugar  content  of  the  beets 
worked  by  the  sugar  factories  of  the  United  States  for  11  years 
ending  with  1913-14  ranged  from  14.90  in  1906  to  16.38  in  1914. 
It  was  above  16  per  cent  but  4  years  of  the  11.  It  should  be  under- 
stood that  the  entire  sugar  content  of  beets  can  not  be  extracted.  A 
ton  of  beets  testing  15  per  cent  contains  300  pounds  of  pure  sugar  at 
the  time  of  delivery  to  the  factory,  but  that  amount  can  not  be 
extracted.  Some  of  it  is  lost  between  the  time  of  purchase  of  the 
beets  and  their  manufacture,  some  of  it  is  left  in  the  beet  pulp,  some 
remains  in  the  molasses,  and  some  is  lost — ^that  is,  it  can  not  be 
accounted  for  at  all.  The  percentage  of  sugar  in  the  beet  is  therefore 
always  greater  than  the  percentage  extracted  (see  p.  25). 

The  average  sugar  content  of  the  beets  worked  in  the  United 
States  from  1904  to  1914,  inclusive,  is  shown  in  Table  6  following. 


BEET  growing. 


23 


Table  6.-AVERAGE  SUGAR  IN  BEETS  USED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  BY  STATES, 

1904  TO  1914. 

[Compiled  from  bulletins  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture.] 


Year. 


1904. 
1905. 
1906. 
1907. 
1908. 
1909. 
1910. 
1911. 
1912. 
1913. 
19141 


Califor- 
nia. 


Colora- 
do. 


Per  cent. '  Per  cent. 


15.74 
17.27 
16.70 
17.90 
17.66 
17.61 
18.20 
18.95 
18.79 
18.04 
18.46 


15.64 
14.71 
14.70 
15.30 
13.85 
14.24 
15.19 
15.44 
16.19 
14.92 
15.35 


Michi- 
gan. 


Per  cent. 
15.13 
15.65 
14.50 
15.10 
17.11 
17.00 
16.08 
14.59 
14.72 
15.82 
15.78 


Utah 

and 

Idaho. 


Per  cent. 
14.82 
14.25 
15.70 

"  17.00 
14.97 
15.51 
16.31 
16.20 
16.65 
15.44 
17.27 


Wiscon- 
sin. 


Per  cent. 
14.54 
15.00 
13.60 
15.10 
16.72 
15.88 
16.75 
14.23 
15.10 
14.10 
(») 


Other 
States. 


Per  cent. 
15.36 
14.04 
14.00 
15.10 
15.22 
15.09 
15.66 
15.16 
15.70 
14.85 
15.51 


United 

States. 


Per  cent. 
15.3a 
15. 3S 
14.90 
15.80 
15.74 
16.10 
16.35 
15.89 
16.31 
15. 7g 
16.38 


Figures  for  1914  subject  to  slight  revision. 
Included  with  "Other  States." 


During  the  11  years  covered  by  the  table  the  beets  in  California 

tested  above  17  per  cent  for  9  years.    In  Colorado  they  tested  above 

16  per  cent  only  one  year  and  above  15  per  cent  for  6  out  of  11  years. 

In  Utah  and  Idaho  the  sugar  content  reached  17  per  cent  for  2  years; 

f  it  was  above  15  per  cent  for  8  years  out  of  11.    In  Michigan  the  per- 

j|  centage  reached  17  for  2  years  and  above  15  for  8  years  out  of  11.    In 

^  Wisconsin  a  content  of  16  per  cent  was  reached  for  only  2  years  and 

^  it  was  above  15  per  cent  for  6  years  out  of  10. 

Purity  of  beets. — There  is  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  weight 
of  beets  that  consists  of  soluble  solids,  mostly  sucrose,  the  chemical 
term  for  crystallizable  sugar.  If  a  ton  of  beets  contains  say  -iOO 
pounds  of  soluble  solids  and  of  these  solids  360  pounds  consist  of 
sucrose  then  these  beets  are  considered  90  per  cent  pure.  Or,  to  put 
it  another  way,  if  the  beets  test  18  per  cent  sucrose  and  20  per  cent 
soluble  solids,  the  per  cent  of  purity,  or  as  technically  expressed  the 
coefficient  of  purity,  is  equal  to  eighteen-twentieths,  or  90  per  cent. 
The  relation  of  the  sugar  content  to  the  soluble  solids  is  very  impor- 
tant because  it  is  the  measure  of  the  purity  of  the  beets.  While  it  is 
thus  important,  it  is  not  by  itself  a  true  test  of  the  value  of  beets. 
Beets  testing  a  very  high  per  cent  of  sucrose  with  a  moderately  low 
per  centage  of  purity  will  yield  more  sugar  than  beets  testing  a  very 
<  low  per  cent  of  sucrose  and  a  high  percentage  of  purity.  This  fact 
is  brought  out  strikingly  in  Table  7  (see  p.  24),  in  which  it  is  seen 
that  the  beets  worked  in  Utah  and  Idaho  average  higher  in  purity 
than  those  in  California,  but  the  sugar  extraction  in  California,  as 
shown  in  Table  8  (see  p.  25),  is  considerably  higher  than  in  Utah 


1 


I 


24 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 


BEET  GROWING. 


25 


I 


and  Idaho.     This  is  because  the  beets  in  California  have  a  much 
higher  percentage  of  sucrose  than  those  in  Utah  and  Idaho. 

The  average  purity  of  beets  worked  in  the  United  States  for  each 
year  from  1904  to  1914,  inclusive,  is  shown  in  Table  T  below.  In  each 
of  the  11  years  shown  in  the  table  the  purity  showed  an  average  above 
82  per  cent;  for  9  years  the  average  was  above  83  per  cent,  and  3 
years  it  was  above  84  per  cent. 

Table  7— AVERAGE  PURITY  COEFFICIENT  OF  BEETS  USED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

BY  STATES,  1904  TO  1914. 

[Compilel  from  bulletins  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture.]  ^ 


Year. 


im. 

1905. 
1906. 
1907 
1908 
1909 
1910 
1911 
1912 
1913 
1914 


Califor- 
nia. 


Per  cent. 
81.13 

'  81.33 
82.70 
85.10 
83.20 
83.62 
82.78 
82.04 
83.99 
86.26 
82. 70 


Colora- 
do. 


Per  cent. 
82.46 
81.79 
80.30 
81.50 
81.80 
80.51 
83.40 
81.22 
84.81 
84.01 
84.22 


Michi- 
gan. 


Per  cent. 
85.47 
84.67 
83.20 
84.70 
84.80 
86. 2L 
86.15 
80.00 
83.75 
82.61 
82.85 


Utah 

and 

Idaho. 


P^r  cent. 
83.24 
82.58 
84.30 
87.20 
85.50 
85.20 
86.54 
86.79 
86.83 
84.65 
86.28 


Wiscon- 
sin. 


Per  cent. 
83.51 
83.00 
83.00 
85.60 
84.50 
85.17 
84.14 
81.00 
84.31 


(») 


Other 
States. 


Per  cent. 
83.12 
81.10 
80.90 
82.30 
82.00 
83.21 
82.69 
84.51 
83.18 
82.17 
83.46 


United 
States. 


Per  cent. 
83.10 
83.00 
82.20 
83.60 
83.50 
84.11 
84.35 
82.21 
84.49 
83.22 
83.89 


1  Included  with  " Other  States." 

The  percentage  of  purity  in  Utah  and  Idaho  exceeded  the  average 
for  the  United  States  10  years  out  of  11.  In  Michigan  the  percentage 
exceeded  the  average  for  the  United  States  6  years  out  of  11  and 
was  equal  to  the  average  in  one  other  year.  In  Wisconsin  the 
average  exceeded  that  for  the  United  States  5  years  out  of  9  and 
was  equal  to  the  average  in  one  other  year.  In  California  and 
Colorado  the  average  fell  below  the  average  for  the  United  States 

8  years  out  of  11. 

The  purity  of  the  beets  in  California  was  above  83  per  cent  for 
5  years  out  of  11.    In  Utah  and  Idaho  it  was  above  84  per  cent  for 

9  years,  and  it  was  above  85  per  cent  for  7  years  during  the  period 
covered.  In  Michigan  it  was  above  82  per  cent  10  years  out  of  an 
11-year  period.  In  Wisconsin  it  was  above  82  per  cent  for  8  years 
out  of  9.  In  the  group  including  the  other  States  the  percentage 
of  purity  was  above  82  per  cent  for  9  years  out  of  11.  The  per- 
centage was  below  81  per  cent  for  2  years  in  Colorado  and  1  year 
in  Michigan. 

Sugar  extraction. — The  real  measure  of  the  value  of  beets  is  the 
quantity  of  sugar  that  can  be  extracted  in  a  reasonably  efficient  fac- 
tory, and  this  should  determine  the  price  to  be  paid  the  farmer. 


The  beet  grower,  therefore,  should  be  specially  concerned  in  the 
quality  of  beets  he  produces,  because  this  governs  the  amount  of 
•sugar  that  can  be  extracted  and  therefore  the  price  he  should  receive. 
The  average  extraction  of  sugar  per  ton  of  beets  in  the  United 
States  by  States  from  1904  to  1914,  inclusive,  is  shown  in  Table  8 
below : 

Table  8  -AVERAGE  EXTRACTION  OF  SUGAR  PER  TON  OF  BEETS  USED  IN  THE  UNITED 

STATES,  BY  STATES,  1904  TO  1914. 

[Compiled  from  bulletins  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture.] 


Year. 


1904 
1905 
1906 
1907 
1908 
1909 
I  1910 
t  1911 
{  1912 
'  1913 
1914 


4 


y. 


t 


Califor- 
nia. 


Per  cent. 
11.80 
14.37 
13.81 
15.06 
13.89 
14.43 
15.15 
15.55 
15.82 
15.05 
15.62 


Colora- 
do. 


Per  cent. 
11.32 
10.47 
11.24 
11.11 
11.03 
11.89 
11.93 
13.04 
13.16 
12.46 
12.94 


Michi- 
gan. 


Per  cent. 
11.98 
12.50 
11.00 
12.16 
13.95 
12.93 
11.53 
8.69 
11.33 
12  82 
1291 


Utah 

and 

Idaho. 


Per  cent. 
11.67 
10.80 
11.25 
13.81 
12.04 
11.13 
12.67 
12.95 
13.70 
1233 
14.26 


Wiscon- 
sin. 


Per  cent. 
10.90 
11.49 
11.10 
12.35 
13.30 
12.01 
11.82 
9.23 
11.23 
11.01 
(0 


Other 
States. 


Per  cent. 
12.15 
10.66 
9.70 
11.37 
12.22 
12.10 
11.83 
11.16 
12.55 
12.25 
12  70 


United 
States. 


Per  cent. 
11.69 
11.74 
11.42 
12.30 
1247 
12.56 
12.61 
11.84 
13.26 
12.96 
13.65 


1  Included  with  "Other  States." 


From  the  foregoing  table  it  is  seen  that  the  average  extraction  for 
the  United  States  fell  below  12  per  cent,  or  below  240  pounds  per 
ton,  for  4  years  during  the  period  covered.  The  highest  percentage  of 
extraction  was  13.65  per  cent  in  1914-15.  The  extraction  per  ton  in 
California  is  far  above  the  average  for  the  United  States  and  consid- 
erably above  the  average  for  any  other  State.  As  already  stated, 
this  is  due  more  to  the  high  percentage  of  sugar  in  the  beets 
grown  in  California  than  to  the  high  percentage  of  purity.  In 
Colorado  the  average  exceeded  the  average  for  the  United  States  but 
1  year  in  11.  In  Michigan  it  exceeded  the  average  for  the  United 
States  4  years.  In  Utah  and  Idaho  the  average  for  the  United  States 
was  exceeded  5  years.  In  Wisconsin  the  average  exceeded  that  for 
the  United  States  but  2  years  out  of  10. 

Summary  of  yield  anp  quality  of  beets. — The  data  in  Tables  5 
to  8  have  been  brought  together  and  shown  in  Table  9  below.  This 
table  also  shows  the  acreage  of  beets  harvested  each  year  from  1904 
to  1914,  inclusive.  The  significant  facts  disclosed  by  this  table  have 
already  been  pointed  out  and  they  are  brought  together  here  merely 
for  convenience  in  comparing  the  various  elements  affecting  the 
quality  of  beets. 


■^f-  ^T*-' 


26 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Table  9.— ACREAGE  HARVESTED,  AVERAGE  YIELD  PER  ACRE,  AVERAGE  SUGAR 
CONTENT  AND  PURITY  OF  BEETS  AND  AVERAGE  EXTRACTION,  BY  STATES,  1904- 
1914. 


state  and  year. 


Cahfom^:  Acres. 

19(M 32,801 

1905 51,857 

1906 60, 141 

1907 47,387 

190S 62, 302 

1909 1  83, 000 

1910 1  90,500 


Area 
har- 
vested. 


ii 


;» 


1911- 

1912 

1913 

1914 

Colorado: . 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

Michigan: 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

Utah  and  Idaho 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 


27,760 
44,550 
44,058 
54,601 
52,141 
46,727 
39,945 
51,002 
56,dSi2 
61,909 
66,600 

I  Percentage  of  sucroee  (pure  sugar)  in  the  total 


99,545 
111,416 
127,610 
104,000 

44,456 

85,916 

110,943 

127,678 

119,475 

121,698 

81,412 

86,437 

144,999 

168,410 

135,400 

53,777 

77,823 

93,984 

88,334 

81,073 

112,232 

117,500 

145,837 

124,241 

107,965 

101,300 


Average 

yield  per 

acre. 


Average 
sugar  m 

Average 
purity 
coeffi- 
cient of 
beets.i 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

15.74 

81.13 

17.27 

81.33 

16.70 

82.70 

17.90 

85.10 

17.66 

83.20 

17.61 

83.62 

18.20 

82.78 

18.95 

82.04 

18.79 

83.99 

18.04 

86.26 

18.46 

82.70 

15.64 

82.46 

14.71 

81.79 

14.70 

80.30 

15.30 

81.50 

13.85 

81.80 

14.24 

80.51 

15.19 

83.40 

15.44 

81.22 

16.19 

84.81 

14.92 

84.01 

15.35 

84.22 

15.13 

85.47 

15.66 

84.67 

14.60 

83.20 

15.10 

84.70 

17.11 

-    84.80 

17.00 

86.21 

16.08 

86.15 

14.59 

80.00 

14.72 

83.75 

15.82 

82.61 

15.78 

82.85 

14.82 

83.24 

14.25 

82.68 

15.70 

84.30 

17.00 

87.20 

14.97 

85.50 

15.51 

85.20 

16.31 

86.54 

16.20 

86.79 

16.65 

86.83 

15.44 

84.65 

17.37 

86.28 

Short  tons. 
12.06 

9.92 
11.17 
10.23 
10.39 
10.63 
10.20 
10.42 

9.01 

8.92 
10.40 

12.38 
10.19 
13.41 
11.93 
9.28 
10.33 
10.62 
11.07 
11.32 
10.93 
12.60 

8.06 
6.83 
8.67 
7.89 
7.54 
7.31 
10.28 
9.90 
6.75 
8.86 
8.50 

11.48 
8.25 
13.89 
10.94 
11.60 
13.24 
10.42 
12.72 
10.81 
11.37 
12.45 

soluble  solids  of  the  beets. 


Average 
extrac- 
tion of 
sugar 

based  on 
weight , 
of  beets 
sliced. 


Per  cent. 
11.80 
14.37 
13.81 
15.06 
13.89 
14.43 
15.15 
15.55 
15.82 
15.05 
15.62 

11.32 
10.47 
11.24 
11.11 
11.03 
11.89 
11.93 
13.04 
13.16 
12.46 
12.94 

11.98 
12.60 
11.00 
12.16 
13.96 
12.93 
11.63 
8.69 
11.33 
12.82 
12.91 

11.67 
10.80 
11.25 
13.81 
12.04 
11.13 
12.67 
12.95 
13.70 
12.33 
14.26 


BEET  GROWING. 


27 


Table  9  -ACREAGE  HARVESTED,  AVERAGE  YIELD  PER  ACRE,  AVERAGE  SUGAR 
CONTENT  AND  PURITY  OF  BEETS  AND  AVERAGE  EXTRACTION,  BY  STATES,  1904- 
1914— Continued.  . 


1 

4 


State  and  year. 

Area 
har- 
vested. 

Average 

yield  per 

acre. 

Average 

sugar  in 

beets. 

Average 
purity 
coeffi- 
cient of 
beets. 

Average 
extrac- 
tion of 
sugar 

based  on 
weight 

of  beets 
sliced. 

Wisconsin: 

1904 

Acres. 
9,500 
14,000 
15,660 
11,837 
14,700 
14,000 
16,772 
23,241 
20,172 
11,800 

Short  tons. 
11.37 

8.86 
10.19 
10.37 

9.37 
10.21 

9.14 
11.02 
10.27 

9.66 

Per  cent. 
14.64 
15.00 
13.60 
16.10 
16.72 
16.88 
16.75 
14.23 
15.10 
14.10 

Per  cent. 
83.51 
83.00 
83.00 
85.60 
84.60 
85.17 
84.14 
81.00 
84.31 

Per  cent. 
10.90 

1905                             

11.49 

1906                                

11.10 

1907        .                  

12.35 

1908     

13.30 

1909       

12.01 

1910  

11.82 

1911         .            

9.28 

1912  

11.23 

1913                                                               

11.01 

1Q141                                                                             

Other  States:                         • 

1904 

29,500 
33,218 
61,388 
41,147 
35,222 
42,605 
61,900 
67,815 
97,520 
102,252 
76,100 

9.01 
7.62 
9.76 
8.33 
8.66 
8.47 
9.29 

10.61 
9.40 
8.87 

10.70 

16.36 
14.04 
14.00 
15.10 
15.22 
16.09 
16.66 
16.16 
16.70 
14.85 
16.51 

83.12 
81.10 
80.90 
82.30 
82.00 
83.21 
82.69 
84.51 
83.18 
82.17 
83.46 

12.15 

1905  

10.60 

1906 

9.70 

1907       

11.37 

1908 

12.22 

1909 

12.10 

1910 

11.83 

1911 

11.16 

1912 

12.55 

1913 

12.25 

1914 

12.70 

•'<! 


» Induded  with  "  Other  States." 

Table  10.— ACREAGE  HARVESTED,  AVERAGE  YIELD  PER  ACRE,  AVERAGE  SUGAR 
CONTENT  AND  PURITY  OF  BEETS  AND  AVERAGE  EXTRACTION,  FOR  THE  UNITED 
STATES,  1904-1914, 


Year. 


1904 
1906 
1906 
1907 
1908 
1909 
1910 
1911 
1912 
1913 
1914 


Area 
har- 
vested. 

Average 

yield  per 

acre. 

Acres. 

Short  tons. 

197,784 

10.47 

307,364 

8.67 

376,074 

11.26 

370*984 

10.16 

364,913 

9.36 

420,262 

9.71 

398,029 

10.17 

473,877 

10.68 

655.300 

9.41 

580,006 

9.76 

483,400 

10.90 

Average 

sugar  in 

beets. 


Average 
purity 
coeffi- 
cient of 
beets.1 


Percent. 
15.33 
15.33 
14.90 
15.80 
16.74 
16.10 
16.35 
15.89 
16.31 
16.78 
16.38 


PereeiU. 
83.10 
83.00 
82.20 
83.60 
83.60 
84.11 
84.35 
82.21 
84.40 
83.22 
83.89 


Average 
extrac- 
tion of 
sugar 
based  on 
weight  of 
beets. 


PercenL 
11.60 
11.74 
11.42 
12.^ 
lfi.47 
12.56 
12.61 
11.84 
13.20 
12.96 
13.65 


1 


i 


\ 


^. 


1  Percentage  of  sucrose  (pure  sugar)  in  the  total  soluble  solids  of  the  beets. 


^.^"-KfT 


^•-^t 


r 


QS 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES. 


BEET  GROWING. 


29 


t 


If 


« 


Section  4.  Experimental  resnlts  in  beet  growing. 

As  already  stated  the  Federal  Government  and  several  of  the 
States  have  devoted  a  great  deal  of  time  to  experimenting  in  beet 
growing  and  in  combating  beet  diseases  and  pests.  The  Federal 
Government  through  the  Department  of  Agriculture  has  been  par- 
ticularly active  in  this  respect.  It  has  brought  to  this  work  the  com- 
bined knowledge  and  skill  of  a  corps  of  the  very  best  scientific  and 
practical  agriculturists.  The  Government  has  conducted  experiments 
under  a  great  variety  of  conditions  and  has  put  to  the  test  every 
factor  affecting  successful  beet  raising.  It  has  experimented  with 
different  varieties  of  beets  in  various  soils.  It  has  tested  fertilizers 
and  methods  of  cultivation  in  numerous  sections  of  the  country  and 
over  a  long  period  of  years.  By  these  experiments  has  been  deter- 
mined in  what  sections  and  under  what  conditions  and  by  what 
methods  the  sugar  beet  can  be  most  profitably  grown.  In  the  labora- 
tories of  the  department  these  beets  have  been  tested  as  to  their  value 
in  the  sugar  factory.  Furthermore,  accounts  have  been  kept  as  to 
the  cost  of  production,  and  the  profits  per  acre  or  per  ton  of  beets 
have  been  determined.  Many  of  these  experiments  have  shown  ex- 
traordinary results  both  as  to  yield  and  to  quality.  The  results  of 
this  experimental  work  have  been  published  in  bulletins  which  are 
available  to  farmers  interested  in  the  subject. 

It  should  be  pointed  out  that  those  conducting  the  experiments  for 
the  Government  have  had  everj^  facility  for  obtaining  the  best  re- 
sults. Therefore  the  high  yields  and  superior  quality  of  beets  pro- 
duced under  these  circumstances  can  not  be  taken  as  results  that  the 
average  farmer  may  reasonably  expect.  With  these  experimental 
results  as  examples  of  what  may  be  done  farmers  in  some  sections  of 
the  country  have  been  induced  to  engage  in  this  branch  of  agricul- 
ture. Of  course,  very  few,  if  any,  have  ever  realized  as  good  results 
as  are  shown  by  the  best  examples  of  the  experimental  work,  but 
some  of  them  have  been  very  successful.  This  experimental  work 
has  been  of  great  value  to  the  beet  growler  and  consequently  to  the 
beet-sugar  industry. 

II.  COST  AND  PROFITS  OF  BEET  GROWING. 

Section  5.  Methods  employed  in  securing  data. 

In  this  investigation  special  agents  visited  farmers  in  the  vicinity 
of  every  beet-sugar  factory  in  the  country  with  two  or  three  excep- 
tions. They  had  personal  interviews  with  hundreds  of  farmers  and 
secured  data  from  about  500.  In  order  to  insure  uniformity  in  the 
classification  of  items  of  expense  the  information  was  secured  in 
schedule  form.  Thus  data  obtained  from  any  farmer  are  com- 
parable in  most  of  the  details  with  those  secured  from  all  others. 


The  various  items  of  expense  were  classified  and  secured  under  the 
following  heads: 

Plowing. 

Harrowing,  rolling,  and  dragging. 

Cost  of  seed. 

Fertilizer. 

Planting. 

Cultivation  (excluding  hoeing) . 

Thinning,  hoeing,  weeding,  and  topping. 

Plowing  out,  loading,  and  hauling. 

Depreciation.^ 

Irrigation. 

Miscellaneous. 

The  charge  under  the  head  "Miscellaneous"  was  pruicipally  for 
fighting  pests,  but  it  includes  other  items  that  could  not  well  be 
assigned  to  any  particular  operation.  In  a  majority  of  cases  there 
was  no  expense  under  this  head,  and  wherever  it  occurs  at  all  it  was 
very  small.  Some  farmers  charged  repairs  of  implements  under 
miscellaneous  expense,  but  this  item  has  been  transferred  to  the  par- 
ticular operations  in  which  the  implements  were  used.  In  addition 
to  the  details  of  cost,  the  schedule  called  for  the  yield  of  beets  per 
acre,  the  price  received  for  beets,  whether  at  the  factory  or  at  a  re- 
ceiving station  on  the  railroad,  and  also  for  the  value  of  the  leaves  or 
tops  used  for  feeding  cattle  and  sheep. 

Difficulties  due  to  lack  of  records. — There  were  found  very  few 
growers  who  kept  books  of  account  from  which  could  be  obtained 
detailed  information  concerning  the  cost  of  growing  beets.  In  order 
to  arrive  at  a  fair  statement  of  costs  it  was  necessary  to  ascertain  the 
prevailing  wages  in  the  locality  for  men  and  the  rate  of  pay  for  men 
and  teams.  Inquiry  was  made  as  to  the  rate  of  pay  for  a  man  and 
2,  3,  4  or  more  horses  and  also  as  to  the  number  of  acres  that  a  man 
and  such  a  team  could  plow,  harrow,  plant,  or  cultivate  in  a  day. 
From  these  statements  it  was  comparatively  easy  to  compute  with 
reasonable  accuracy  the  cost  per  acre  for  the  several  processes.  In 
practically  all  the  districts  there  were  established  prices  per  acre  for 
the  handwork  done  by  contract.  In  some  cases  all  or  part  of  this 
handwork  of  blocking,  thinning,  hoeing,  topping,  and  loading  was 
done  by  special  contracts  or  by  the  day.  When  done  by  the  grower 
or  members  of  his  own  family  an  allowance  was  made  to  correspond 
with  the  prevailing  price  for  such  work  in  the  locality.  Several  of 
the  beet-sugar  companies  grow  beets  on  a  large  scale  and  keep  com- 
plete records  of  the  cost.    It  was  generally  found,  however,  that  the 

1  The  charge  for  depreciation  has  not  been  included  in  the  tabulations  for  reasons  stated 
elsewhere  (seep.  32). 


y     '   :},l 


7ff 


■a 


yUMWH 


I 

'■■'ii 
,11 


30 


THE  BEET   SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


cost  per  acre  for  growing  beets  on  a  large  scale  by  the  sugar  com- 
panies was  considerably  greater  than  when  grown  by  small  farmers. 
While  two  or  three  of  the  beet-sugar  companies  have  been  able  to 
grow  some  beets  at  a  cost  as  low  or  lower  than  they  could  be  bought 
from  farmers,  a  number  of  others  have  had  an  opposite  experience. 
Thus,  for  instance,  it  cost  one  company  $6.50  per  ton  to  grow  beets, 
and  another  $7.50,  but  both  these  companies  were  able  to  buy  beets 
in  the  vicinity  of  their  factories  at  $5.50.  The  beet-growing  opera- 
tions of  still  another  company  covering  several  years  resulted  in  a 
cost  ranging  from  $6.35  to  about  $12  per  ton,  while  the  company  was 
able  to  buy  beets  during  that  time  at  $5  per  ton.  This  high  cost  to 
the  beet-sugar  companies  for  growing  beets  is  due  partly  to  the  fact 
that  they  use  all  of  a  large  tract  of  land  regardless  of  its  adaptability 
to  beets,  while  the  small  farmer  generally  uses  only  that  portion  of 
his  farm  that  is  best  adapted  to  the  growing  of  beets.  Furthermore, 
the  personal  attention  that  the  small  farmer  is  able  to  give  to  beet 
growing  gives  him  an  advantage  over  the  large  grower  who  is  de- 
pendent upon  hired  supervision  and  help  exclusively. 

Section  6.  Representativeness  and  reliability  of  data. 

Every  effort  was  made  to  secure  information  that  was  both  repre- 
sentative and  reliable.  Difficulties  in  the  way  of  securing  reliable 
data  and  the  method  employed  to  overcome  these  difficulties  have 
already  been  pointed  out.  It  was  not  possible  to  secure  data  that 
would  show  the  average  results  of  all  the  beet  growers  in  any  locality. 
While  such  results  would  represent  conditions  a«  they  actually  exist, 
they  would  not  in  fact  represent  fairly  the  reasonable  probabilities 
of  beet  farming  among  ordinarily  careful  farmers  planting  land 
fairly  well  adapted  to  this  crop.  The  figures  presented  are  repre- 
sentative of  the  actual  range  of  costs,  and  they  show  the  results 
obtained  under  the  various  conditions  prevailing  in  each  locality. 

Eepresentativeness  of  the  ixfor^iatiox  SECURED.— The  special 
agents  were  instructed  to  secure  information  from  both  large  and 
small  farmers  in  each  locality.  These  instructions  had  in  view  the 
interviewing  of  a  number  of  farmers  in  each  locality  representative 
of  those  cultivating  more  or  less  than  the  average  acreage  and  those 
producing  more  or  less  than  the  average  tonnage  of  beets  per  acre. 
Among  those  supplying  information  there  was  a  number  whose  oper- 
ations showed  a  loss.  Wherever  the  data  appeared  to  be  reliable  they 
were  used  regardless  of  whether  they  showed  a  profit  or  not.  The 
results  fall  between  the  exceptionally  good  ones  obtained  by  experi- 
ments made  under  the  most  favorable  conditions  and  the  exception- 
ally poor  ones  due  to  slovenly  methods  or  to  the  use  of  soils  not 
adapted  to  the  crop. 


BEET  GROWING. 


31 


i 


1 


I 


Both  large  and  small  farmers  are  included,  but  the  tables  show 
no  significant  difference  between  their  results.  Speaking  generally, 
the  profitableness  of  beet  growing  does  not  appear  to  depend  upon 
the  acreage  cultivated,  but  upon  the  adaptability  of  the  land,  the 
climatic  conditions,  upon  the  methods  employed  in  cultivation,  and 
upon  irrigation  in  arid  or  semiarid  regions. 

An  effort  was  made  to  secure  information  covering  the  three  con- 
secutive years  1911,  1912,  and  1913.  For  various  reasons  many 
farmers  could  not  supply  information  for  all  of  the  three  years. 
No  schedule  was  rejected,  however,  for  this  reason.  If  it  seemed  that 
a  fairly  accurate  statement  could  be  secured  for  only  one  year  it 
was  taken.  Naturally  more  farmers  were  able  to  give  figures  for  the 
latest  year  than  for  any  other. 

Eeliability  of  data. — Excluding  lifting  and  hauling,  approxi- 
mately 70  per  cent  of  the  labor  expense  in  beet  growing  is  on  account 
of  work  done  by  hand.  In  practically  every  locality  some  farmers, 
and  in  many  localities  most  of  them,  get  this  labor  done  at  a  contract 
price  of  so  much  per  acre.  A  fair  or  customary  rate  of  cost  per  acre 
for  various  operations  with  teams  and  implements  was  ascertained 
in  the  manner  already  explained.  The  cost  of  harvesting  and  mar- 
keting (lifting  and  hauling)  can  be  determined  with  almost  absolute 
accuracy.  Thus  the  cost  of  labor,  the  principal  element  in  beet 
growing,  can  be  arrived  at  with  reasonable  exactness.  The  other 
elements  of  cost,  such  as  seed,  irrigation,  fertilization,  etc..  con- 
stitute only  from  10  to  15  per  cent  of  the  total  cost,  and  most  of  them 
are  easily  ascertainable. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  difficulties  of  determining  agricultural 
costs  in  general  are  greatly  reduced  in  the  case  of  beets.  Further- 
more, the  great  expense  incident  to  beet  culture  makes  the  farmer 
more  careful  to  keep  in  touch  with  this  part  of  his  farming  opera- 
tions. Under  these  circumstances,  and  in  view  of  the  care  exercised 
by  the  special  agents  in  securing  information,  it  is  believed  that  the 
statistics  of  costs  shown  in  this  report  are  very  reliable.  Confidence 
in  the  accuracy  of  the  figures  is  further  strengthened  by  the  fact  that 
they  are  supported  by  many  results  obtained  in  the  experimental 
work  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  and  by  various 
State  experiment  stations. 

After  ascertaining  the  cost  of  growing  it  is  easy  to  determine  the 
profits.  All  farmers  receive  statements  from  the  factories  showing 
the  prices  paid  for  beets  as  they  are  delivered.  In  most  cases  these 
statements  were  available.  In  some  cases  where  records  of  the  price 
received  had  not  been  kept  the  agents  had  access  to  the  records  of  the 
factories  where  the  beets  were  sold,  since  manv  of  the  factories,  in 
fact  most  of  them,  keep  records  of  their  purchases  from  each  indi- 
vidual farmer. 


32 


THE   BEET  SUGAR   INDUSTRY  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES. 


Section  7.  Classifying  and  tabulating  data. 

All  schedules  were  carefully  examined  to  correct  clerical  errors 
and  to  harmonize  inconsistencies.  There  was  sometimes  a  lack  of 
uniformity  in  reporting  such  items  of  cost  as  fertilization,  irrigation, 
freight  on  beets,  planting  and  replanting,  rent  of  machines,  etc.,  but 
these  were  harmonized  in  the  light  of  explanations  made  by  the 
special  agents.  There  was  then  made  an  almost  literal  transcription 
of  the  schedules  in  tabular  form  and  defective  schedules  disclosed  by 
this  preliminary  tabulation  were  rejected. 

There  were  notations  on  a  number  of  schedules  from  each  district 
indicating  the  rental  value  of  land.  Since  a  charge  for  rent  would 
be  practically  an  estimated  profit  on  the  investment  in  land,  this  item 
was  eliminated  from  the  tabulation.  Furthermore,  there  was  such  a 
wide  variation  in  the  estimated  rental  values  due  to  differences  in 
judgment  and  to  location  and  quality  of  land  as  to  make  a  presenta- 
tion of  the  data  of  little  value,  and  it  would  probably  result  in  mis- 
leading deductions.  In  order  to  make  all  schedules  comparable  as  to 
costs,  cash  and  crop  rentals  paid  by  tenants  have  been  disregarded. 
In  some  localities  a  large  proportion  of  the  crop  is  grown  by  tenants. 
The  share  rentals  range  from  one-sixth  to  one-fourth  of  the  amount 
received  for  the  beets  and  part  or  all  the  tops.  Cash  rentals  range 
from  as  low  as  $10  to  sometimes  as  high  as  $40  per  acre.  The  latter 
is  exceptional,  but  $20  is  not  uncommon. 

Depreciation  involves  questions  so  intricate  as  to  make  it  impos 
sible  to  arrive  at  a  fair  charge  for  this  item.  For  example,  many  of 
the  implements  used  in  the  cultivation  of  beets  were  also  used  in  the 
cultivation  of  other  crops.  It  was  manifestly  impossible  to  deter- 
mine with  any  degree  of  accuracy  what  proportion  of  the  value  of 
these  implements  should  be  assigned  to  beets.  Furthermore,  in  the 
West  there  was  involved  depreciation  of  irrigation  plants,  ditches,  etc. 

In  some  districts  the  farmer  pays  a  portion  of  the  freight  on  the 
beets  from  the  loading  station  to  the  factory.  For  example,  if  the 
freight  from  a  given  point  to  the  factory  is  80  cents  per  ton  the 
farmer  may  agree  to  pay  40  cents  freight  and  the  factory  pays  40 
cents.  This  amount  of  freight  was  charged  in  the  schedule  as  an 
expense.  This  matter  was  adjusted  by  eliminating  the  freight  charge 
from  the  cost  statement  and  reducing  the  price  received  for  beets 
by  the  same  amount.  Thus,  if  a  farmer  paid  30  cents  per  ton  for 
freight  and  received  $6.50  per  ton  for  beets,  the  price  was  reduced 
by  30  cents  per  ton  and  the  beets  were  credited  at  $6.20. 

In  the  final  tabulation  certain  items  of  cost  were  combined  and 
the  nomenclature  was  somewhat  changed.  Thus  "plowing"  and 
"  harrowing,  rolling,  and  dragging  "  were  combined  and  these  opera- 
tions were  tabulated   under  the   head   of  "preparation   of   soil." 


f 


BEET  GROWING. 


33 


"  Planting  "  and  "  cultivating  "  were  also  combined.  The  term  "  con- 
tract labor  "  was  changed  to  read  "  hand  labor  "  because  hand  labor 
was  not  contracted  for  in  all  cases,  often  being  done  by  the  farmer's 
own  family.  "  Harvesting  "  was  changed  to  read  "  lifting  and  haul- 
ing" because  the  topping  and  the  loading  are  a  part  of  the  hand 
labor  and  in  the  case  of  contract  labor  is  often  included  in  the  con- 
tract. Wherever  the  loading  had  been  itemized  separately  it  was 
deducted  from  the  amount  charged  for  "  lifting  and  hauling "  and 
added  to  "hand  labor."  The  charges  for  fertilizing  and  irrigation 
were  very  carefully  scrutinized  in  the  light  of  the  notations  made 
by  the  special  agents  and  these  items  were  carefully  adjusted  so  as  to 
render  the  schedules  comparable. 

Beet  tops  have  considerable  money  value  as  forage,  but  this  varies 
in  different  localities  and  in  different  j^ears  for  the  same  locality. 
It  depends  to  some  extent  upon  the  volume  or  scarcity  of  forage 
crops  in  the  community.  In  some  sections,  where  there  is  consider- 
able cattle  and  sheep  feeding,  there  is  always  a  demand  for  tops 
because  of  their  fattening  qualities.  If  there  is  little  stock  raising 
in  the  community  the  demand  for  tops  is  lighter.  In  the  far 
northern  districts  frost  and  snow  sometimes  destroy  tops  or  prevent 
their  use  for  feeding  purposes,  but  they  always  have  a  value  as  a 
fertilizer  for  the  soil.  In  fact  it  is  contended  by  some  that  their 
highest  value  is  as  a  fertilizer,  and  such  a  use  is  recommended.  Be- 
cause of  the  widely  varying  value  of  tops,  both  actual  and  estimated, 
this  item  is  a  source  of  so  much  uncertainty  that  it  was  thought  best 
to  eliminate  it. 

Pulp  was  at  one  time  an  important  item  of  profit  to  the  farmer. 
Many  factories  allowed  farmers  free  pulp  up  to  a  fixed  percentage 
of  his  beet  tonnage.  All  factories  did  not  do  this  nor  did  all  farmers, 
use  the  pulp  allowed  them.  The  custom  has  grown  less  and  less 
common  until  it  is  not  now  a  generally  important  factor.  For  these 
reasons  pulp  has  been  disregarded  as  an  element  affecting  the  profits 
of  the  farmer. 

Two  tables  are  shown.     Tl^e  first  includes  all  of  the  accepted 

schedules  for  those  farmers  reporting  the  results  of  their  operations 

for  the  year  1913,  while  the  second  shows  the  results  of  those  farms 

for  which  schedules  were  secured  for  the  three  years  1911,  1912,  and 

1913.    The  table  for  the  year  1913  represents  453  farms  and  shows 

the  cost  in  detail,  the  total  expense  and  yield  per  acre,  the  amount 

^  of  money  received  for  the  beets  grown  on  each  acre,  and  the  profit 

per  ton.    The  second  table  embraces  the  results  of  214  farms  and 

,  shows  the  average  number  of  acres  cultivated  by  each  farmer  for 

i  the  three  years,  the  average  yield,  the  average  expense  per  acre  and 

per  ton,  and  the  average  profit  per  acre  and  per  ton.    This  table  also 


1 


^. 


\ 


'I'.j. 


34 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 


BEET  GROWING. 


35 


I 


i< 


shows  the  average  for  all  the  farms  in  particular  distVicts  for  the 
three  years. 

Section  8.  Cost  and  profits  of  individual  growers  in  1913. 

The  costs  and  profits  (or  in  some  eases,  losses)  of  453  beet  growers 
in  the  year  1913  are  shown  by  Table  11  below.  Of  course  the 
profits  in  any  agricultural  crop  vary  from  year  to  year  according  to 
conditions.  In  some  years  the  yield  is  greater  than  in  others,  and 
the  quality  is  better  in  some  years  than  others.  Both  these  factors 
may  affect  the  same  crop.  In  fact,  it  is  often  the  case  that  a  poor 
yield  is  accompanied  by  a  poor  quality,  but  this  is  not  always  so. 
The  result  of  a  single  year  therefore  will  seldom  if  ever  represent 
average  results.  It  should  be  noted  in  this  connection,  however,  that 
the  year  1913  was  generally  considered  in  most  districts,  particularly 
in  the  West,  as  being  about  an  average  year.  While  the  figures  in 
Table  11  should  not  be  taken  as  absolutely  representative  of  general 
results  in  beet  growing,  they  may  be  considered  as  fairly  indicating 
what  may  be  reasonably  expected  from  year  to  year.  Their  most 
significant  value,  however,  is  in  showing  the  general  distribution  of 
costs  and  the  variation  in  the  several  items. 

Table  11.— COSTS  AND  PROFITS  OF  GROWING  BEETS  IN  THE    UNITED  STATES,    BY 

FARMS  GROUPED  BY  DISTRICTS,  1913. 

OHIO-INDIANA  DISTRICT. 


Farm' 
num- 
ber. 


Acres. 


Cost  per  acre. 


Prep- 
ara-  ' 
tion 
of 
soil. 


Hand 
labor. 


PIan^ 
ing 
and 
cul- 

tivat 
tng. 


1 i      7.00 

2 !    20.50 


3... 

4... 

6... 

6... 

7... 

8..., 

9.... 

10... 

11... 

12... 

13... 

14... 

15... 

16... 

17... 

18... 


6.50 
35.00 

1.75 
40.31 
18.00 
27.50 
17.65 
28.39 
19.40 
27.90 
14.00 
16.88 
20.00 
25.00 
4.00 
10.00 


$3.00 

4.25 

4.50 

3.50 

4.50 

5.00 

4.00 

5.25 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

3.50 

4.50 

3.50 

3.00 

4.26  I 

4.50  I 

3.60  I 


$18.00 
18.00 
18.00 
18.00 
18.00 
18.00 
18.00 
18.00 
18.00 
19.50 
18.00 
19.00 
18.00 
18.00 
16.00 
17.50 
18.00 
18.00 


$2.50 
.50 
3.00 
3.50 
3.85 
2.50 
3.00 
4.50 
2.15 
3.40 
1.40 
2.40 
2.40 
2.90 
2.50 
3.00 
3.00 
3.50 


Lift- 
ing 
and 
haul- 


Irri- 

ga- 

tion. 


$9.20 

10.00 

13.50 

8.60 

5.50 

5.62 

6.45 

7.00 

6.15 

6.00 

4.00 

8.00 

7.50 

8.60 

7.50 

7.60 

9.70 

6.90 


Fertil- 
izer. 


Seed 


$3.00 
2.60 
2.40 
3.00 
1.80 
2.40 


Mis- 

cel- 

lane- 

ous. 


Total 
ex- 
penses. 


Value 

per 

acre. 


1.93 
6.45 
2.35 
3.89 


1.80 


1.20 
2.40 
1  Loss. 


$L50 
2.30 
L60 
1.50 
1.50. 
L70 
1.45 
2.30 
1.80 
1.73 
L50 
1.60 
1.50 
1.50 
1.20 
L50 
1.50 
L80 


$0.45 
.50 


Profit 

per 

acre. 


.30 


.15 
.15 
.45 
.46 


$37.20 
38.10 
43.40 
38.10 
35.15 
35.52 
32.90 
38.98 
38.55 
36.98 
32.79 
34.40 
33.90 
34.50 
32.15 
34.00 
38.35 
36.56 


$60.00 
67.16 
70.00 
55.00 
35.36 
38.65 
31.69 
46. 70 
50.95 
47.90 
37.67 
43.50 
66.50 
43.07 
70.20 
6L60 
51.25 
45.00 


$22.80 
29.06 
26.60 
16.90 
.21 
3.13 
U.21 
7.72 
12.40 
10.92 
4.78 
9.10 
22.60 
8.57 
38.05 
27.60 
12.90 
8.45 


Yield 

per 

acre. 


Profit 
per 
ton. 


Tom. 
12.00 
12.10 
14.00 
11.00 
6.43 
7.73 
6.34 
9.25 
10.19 
9.58 
7.50 
8.70 
11.30 
8.60 
13.00 
11.00 
10.25 
9.00 


SI.  90 
2.40 
1.90 
1.54 

.03 

.40 
1.19 

.83 
1.22 
1.14 

.64 
1.05 
2.00 
1.00 
2.93 
2.51 
L26 
.94 


Table   11.— COSTS  AND   PROFITS  OF   GROWING  BEETS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  BY 

FARMS  GROUPED  BY  DISTRICTS,  1913— Continued. 

OHIO-INDIANA  DISTRICT-Continued. 


Farm 
num- 
ber. 

Acres. 

Cost  per  acre. 

Value 

per 

acre. 

Profit 

per 

acre. 

1 

Yield 

per 

acre. 

Prep- 
ara- 
tion 
of 
soil. 

Hand 
labor. 

Plant- 
ing 
and 
cul- 
tivat- 
ing. 

Lift- 
ing 
and 
haul- 
ing. 

Irri- 
ga- 
tion. 

Fertil- 
izer. 

Seed. 

Mis- 

cel- 

lane- 

ous. 

Total 
ex- 
penses. 

Profit 
per 
ton. 

19.... 
20.... 
21.... 
22.-.. 
23-... 
24.... 
25-... 
26.... 
27.... 
28.... 
29-... 
30.J.- 

13.00 

12.00 

6.50 

8.00 

32.00 

22.00 

12.00 

12.00 

20.00 

13.00 

4.00 

14.00 

$4.50 
5.00 
4.00 
4.00 
3.50 
4.25 
4.50 
4.60 
4.00 
3.60 
4.25 
4.50 

$18. 00 
18.00 
18.00 
18.00 
18.00 
18.00 
16.00 
18.00 
18.00 
18.00 
18.00 
18.00 

$3.60 
3.00 
2.60 
3.00 
2.50 
3.00 
3.00 
3.50 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

$10. 75 

12.30 
5.50 
6.00 

10.30 
7.00 
9.80 

11.80 
7.50 
5.70 

11.60 
9.80 

$L50 
1.50 
2.25 
1.50 
L60 
1.50 
1.50 
L50 
1.50 
L80 
1.50 
1.50 
1 

$0.16 
.15 
.45 
.40 
.30 
.10 
.15 
.45 
.30 
.15 
.30 
.25 
1 

$38.40 
41.10 
35.70 
35.70 
36.20 
35.28 
36.75 
40.96 
36.70 
35.15 
40.45 
39.46 

$66.25 
67.50 
49.50 
56.64 
70.00 
34.16 
66.30 
73.20 
50.00 
38.60  1 
76. 87  1 

57.75  ; 

1 

$27.86 
26.40 
13.80 
20.84 
33.80 
11.12 
29.65 
32.25 
13.30 
3.35 
36.42 
18.30 

Tons. 
13.25 
13.50 

9.00 
11.00 
14.00 

6.45 
13.00 
12.00 
10.00 

7.00 
13.90  ' 

n.oo 

1 

1 

S2.10 
1.96 
1.53 
1.89 
2.41 
».17 
2.27 
2.69 
1.33 
.48 
2.62 
1.66 

$L15 
3.00 
2.80 



1.43 
1.80 
1.20 
2.40 
3.00 
L80 
2.40 

31.. 

32.. 

33.. 

34.. 

35.. 

36.. 

37.- 

38-. 

39-. 

40.- 

41.. 

42-. 

43-- 
•44.- 

45-- 

46-. 

47.. 
,48.. 
^49.. 

50.. 

51.. 

62.. 

63.. 
•54.. 
.55.- 

56... 

57.. 

58. .. 
'59--. 

60-.. 


MICHIGAN,  LOWER  PENINSULA. 


9.50 

4.94 

18.75 

38.60 

4.00 

21.60 

26.50 

4.50 

8.00 

2.00 

24.00 

7.50 

6.70 

2.31 

3.47 

4.60 

8.84 

8.12 

9.36 

37.00 

49.76 

8.79 

33.00 

18.00 

9.08 

4.59 

19.84 

100.00 

18.00 

6.00 


$7.00 
5.75 
7.00 
6.00 
7.00 
4.25 
4.25 
4.55 
7.50 
4.25 
4.25 
5.05 
3.50 
4.00 
4.00 
3.00 
4.00 
2.75 
6.00 
4.10 
4.50 
6.25 
4.75 
5.00 
5.00 
9.00 
3.75 
5.55 
4.00 
5.00 


$18. 00 

18.00 

18.00 

18.00 

16.00 

18.00 

20.00 

20.00 

20.00 

16.00 

20.00 

16.00 

18.00 

16.00 

15.00 

15.00 

16.50 

15.00 

16.00 

18.00 

18.00 

16.00 

18.00 

16.00 

16.00 

16.00 

16.00 

18.00 

18.00 

18.00 


$2.40 
4.00 
4.50 
3.75 
4.00 
3.50 
3.00 
4.05 
2.55 
3.00 
2.25 
4.60 
4.40 
3.95 
3.50 
2.60 
5.50 
3.90 
10.50 
3.60 
4.65 
6.40 
6.01 
7.50 
5.50 
5.00 
5.80 
2.50 
4.40 
4.50 


$5.75 


10.00 

18.00 

7.50 

1 

1 

1 
1 

$2.00 

!  8.25 

1 
1 

5.00 

10.25 

] 

3.50 

9.75 

2.00 

n.75 

1.75 

13.50 

1 

1.80 

10.00 

1 

2.50 

7.25 

1 

2.80 

9.65 

1.75 

11.00 



3.00 

13.25 

3.00 

9.50 
7.00 

2.20 

12.00 

2.00 

4.75 

L65 

12.00 
7.75 

5.00 

8.20 

.70 

14.50 

1.50 

9.30 

2.20 

13.63 

2.25 

8.00 

3.00 

6.50 
7.50 

3.00 

6.50 

2.50 

7.25 
6.00 

$2.25 
2.70 
2.25 
3.00 
2.70 
2.70 
2.25 
2.70 
2.55 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
3.00 
2.25 
2.25 
L80 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.44 
2.50 
2.68 
2.87 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
1.80 
2.25 


•SO.  50 


.50 


.25 


.50 

.25 

1.00 


.25 
.50 
.50 
.25 

2.00 
.60 

1.00 


$35.40 

40.45 

50.25 

39.25 

42.95 

42.20 

41.25 

44.80 

47.90 

38.00 

38.80 

39.30 

43.40 

42.45 

34.25 

31.60 

42.50 

30.30 

47.25 

40.95 

39.49 

47.15 

42.94 

47.50 

40.25 

39.25  I 

38.55  I 

39.30  I 

35.95 

36.75 


$57. 18 
83.69 
56.64 
62.90 
65.33 
56.90 
63.28 
81.17 
65.45 
70.26 
71.40 
68.24 
60.46 
80.01 
59.68 
57.66 
42.20 
13.48 
53.81 
51.32 
31.89 
65.16 
66.08 
62.06 
57.69 
48.78 
65.05 
44.73 
53.68 
50.00 


$21.78 
43.24 

6.39 
23.65 
23.38 
14.70 
22.03 
36.37 
17.55 
32.26 
32.60 
28.94 
17.06 
37.56 
25.43 
26.06 
1.30 
116. 82 

6.56 
10.37 
17.60 
18.01 
23.14 
14.56 
17.44 
9.53 
26.50 
5.43 
17.73 
13.25 


$10.00 

14.70 

10.00 

11.43 

12.65 

10.50 

11.50 

14.10 

11.50 

13.30 

14.00 

13.00 

10.10 

13.43 

12.11 

10.70 

8.26 

2.69 

10.69 

11.22 

7.33 

11.88 

11.79 

11.43 

10.40 

9.31 

11.56 

8.06 

9.50 

9.60 


$2.14 
24.4 
.69 
2.07 
1.70 
1.42 
1.98 
2.53 
1.53 
2.43 
2.33 
2.29 
1.60 
2.80 
2..1 
j    2.04 
I    1  .25 
j  16.67 
I      .92 
I      184 
I  11.01 
I    1.52 
1.96 
I    1.27 
I    1.68 
1     1.02 
i    2.29 
j      .67 
1.87 
1.3» 


1  Loss. 


4. 


/ 


wm 


36 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 


i 


Table  11.— COSTS  AND  PROFITS  OF  GROWING  BEETS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  BY 

FARMS  GROUPED  BY  DISTRICTS,  1913— Continued. 

MICHIGAN,  LOWER  PENINSULA-Continued. 


Farm 
num- 
ber. 


61.. 
62.. 
63.. 
64.. 
65-. 
66.. 
67.. 
68.. 
69.. 
70.. 
71.. 
72.. 
73.. 
74.. 
75.. 
76.. 
77.. 
78.. 
79.. 
80.. 
81.. 
82.. 
83.. 
84.. 
8S.. 
86.. 
87.. 
88.. 
89.. 
90.. 
91.. 
92.. 
93.. 
94.. 
95.. 
96.. 
97.. 
98.. 
99.. 
100. 
101. 
102. 
103. 
104. 
105. 
06. 


Acres. 


12.00 

14.50 

12.00 

30.00 

22.00 

7.80 

24.00 

44.00 

19.25 

7.00 

2.00 

10.00 

35.00 

2.50 

24.00 

6.50 

4.50 

14.00 

5.50 

13.00 

11.75 

4.50 

30.00 

21.25 

26.50 

28.00 

10.00 

13.00 

4.00 

31.00 

11.00 

1.00 

8.25 

23.60 

6.87 

14.68 

15.15 

6.85 

6.45 

7.00 

15.31 

49.00 

45.00 

8.00 

7.00 

3.50 


Cost  per  acre. 


Prep- 
ara- 
tion 
of 
soil. 


2.75 
6.50 
4.00 
2.00 
4.50 
3.50 
3.50 
5.00 
3.00 
3.25 
6.50 
7.00 
4.40 
5.50 
6.50 
3.75 
5.10 
5.00 
5.50 
5.00 
5.50 
9.00 
5.00 
5.00 
4.50 
8.00 
4.50 
4.50 
5.00 


Hand 
labor. 


818.00 
18.00 
17.17 
18.00 
18.00 
16.00 
19.00 
18.00 
20.00 
16.00 
18.00 
20.00 
18.00 
20.00 
20.00 
19.00 
20.00 
18.00 
17.00 
20.00 
18.00 
18.00 
20.00 
22.00 
22.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
18.00 


4.25  i  22.00 


4.50 
4.50 
5.00 
4.75 
4.50 
2.60 
4.00 
4.50 
4.50 
3.75 
4.50 
4.60 
6.80 
6.00 
5.50 
4.75 


20.00 
18.00 
20.00 
18.00 
18.00 
20.00 
18.00 
20.00 
20.00 
18.00 
18.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
22.00 
18.00 


Fhntr 
tag 
and 
cul- 

tivat 
tag. 


13.50 
3.50 
2.50 
4.00 
3.60 
2.90 
3.00 
3.50 
3.10 
4.50 
3.40 
3.50 
3.25 
4.00 
5.00 
5.25 
3.00 
3.25 
4.50 
2.90 
4.50 
2.65 
4.50 
4.25 
4.25 
3.00 
5.50 
3.50 
3.50 
5.50 
2.25 
5.75 
2.00 
3.50 
3.50 
3.50 
2.90 
3.50 
3.50 
3.20 
3.15 
3.00 
3.00 
3.50 

3.eo 

7.50 


Lift- 
tag 
and 
haul- 
tag. 


Irri- 
ga- 
tion. 


$8.50 

10.00 

5.00 

9.75 

9.00 

6.50 

8.00 

7.00 

4.00 

7.00 

6.50 

7.50 

8.00 

6.60 

11.00 

10.00 

5.90 

8.00 

9.50 

11.50 

13.00 

11.25 

12.25 

13.00 

15.00 

15.00 

11.50 

6.50 

12.75 

16.00 

10.75 

8.00 

8.50 

6.80 

8.25 

8.75 

6.00 

9.50 

9.50 

3.75 

7.05 

8.50 

10.50 

13.50 

14.00 

9.75 


Fertil- 
izer. 


$2.10 
2.10 


1.65 


1.20 
1.20 
1.20 
1.50 
2.90 
1.75 


1.50 


2.80 


1.00 
3.00 
4.50 
6.00 
2.80 
1.00 
2.25 
1.50 
3.00 
7.50 
3.00 
5.00 
6.00 
5.00 
2.25 
1.35 
6.00 
8.10 
1.95 
1  95 
1.35 
5.85 
1.50 
4.80 
5.90 
6.00 
8.00 

»  Loss. 


Seed 


$2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
1.80 
2.25 
2.25 
4.00 
2.25 
2.25 
1.80 
2.25 
3.00 
2.25 
1.50 
2.25 
2.25 
2.53 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.70 
2.25 
2.25 
2.70 
1.80 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.40 
2.40 
2.25 
2.25 
3.00 
3.00 
2.25 
2.40 
3.00 
2.70 
2.25 
2.70 
1.70 


Mis- 

cel- 

lane- 

ous. 


80.50 

1.00 

.50 

.50 


1.00 
.30 


.50 
.50 


.50 
.50 
.50 


.70 
1.00 


1.50 


.25 
.50 
.25 
.50 


.50 
.50 
.25 


.50 
.25 


1.00 


Total 
ex- 
penses, 


$37.60 
43.35 
31.42 
37.70 
37.35 
31.15 
38.50 
27.25 
33.55 
34.25 
38.15 
44.40 
37.65 
38.10 
45.25 
42.25 
36.53 
40.00 
39.75 
42.65 
47.75 
47.65 
50.70 
49.80 
49.25 
51.45 
44.80 
40.25 
49.50 
53.25 
44.75 
44.50 
43.25 
37.95 
38.00 
43.10 
41.25 
42.45 
42.45 
32.30 
40.95 
40.60 
48.80 
5L15 
53.80 
49.70 


Value 

per 

acre. 


$52. 25 
77.18 
39.74 
58.75 
68.94 
50.08 
38.00 
53.00 
27.60 
54.08 
23.55 
20.71 
74.67 
47.60 
53.62 
57.92 
70.81 
83.20 
55.65 
51.65 
51.60 
66.00 
59.65 
63.30 
76.83 
66.59 
60.33 
37.20 
75.45 
84.86 
55.76 
88.82 
77.50 
59.64 
66.73 
76.40 
2L94 
56.79 
49.50 
42.32 
55.84 
75.30 
67.00 
76.37 
70.00 
56.55 


Profit   Yield 

per    !    per 

acre.     acre. 


$14.65 
33.83 

8.32 
21.05 
31.59 
18.93 

1  .50 
15.75 
15.95 
19.83 
114.60 
•23.69 
37.02 

9.50 

8.37 
15.67 
34.28 
43.20 
15.90 

9.00 

3.85 
18.35 

8.95 
13.50 
27.58 
15.14 
15.53 
13.05 
25.95 
3L61 
ILOl 
44.32 
34.25 

21.  eo 

28.73 

33.30 

»19.31 

14.34 

7.05 
10.02 
14.89 
34.70 
18.20 
25.22 
16.20 

6.85 


Tons. 
9.50 

13.00 

7.50 

10.25 

11.92 

9.45 

7.30 

10.00 

5.02 

10.30 

4.66 

3.82 

14.50 

7.32 

9.00 

9.36 

13.00 

14.44 

8.78 

9.73 

10.00 

11.00 

10.00 

10.05 

12.12 

10.82 

11.00 

6.00 

13.20 

14.00 

8.50 

17.86 

13.35 

11.76 

12.37 

12.95 

4.07 

9.13 

8.25 

7.16 

10.26 

14.00 

10.54 

11.83 

12.00 

8.93 


Profit 
per 
ton. 


$1.54 

2.60 

1.11 

2.05 

2.65 

2.00 

I  .07 

1.58 

11.19 

1.93 

13.13 

16.20 

2.55 

1.30 

.93 
1.67 
2.64 
2.99 
1.81 

.92 

.39 
1.67 

.90 
1.34 
2.28 
1.40 
1.41 
1.51 
1.97 
2.26 
1.30 
2.48 
2.57 
1.84 
2.32 
2.57 
14.74 
1.57 

.85 
1.40 
1.45 
2.48 
1.73 
2.13 
1.35 

.77 


r\ 


i 


IIEET  GROWING. 


37 


^ 


*> 


:> 


^ 

I 

/ 

I 


r 


/ 


A 


»       > 

/ 


A       4 


TABLE  ll.-COSTS  AND  PROFITS  OF  GROWING  BEETS  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES    BY 

FARMS  GROUPED  BY  DISTRICTS,  1913-Continued. 
MICHIGAN,  LOWER  PENINSULA-Continued. 


WISCONSIN,  NORTHERN  DISTRICT. 


128.. 

129.. 

130.. 

131.. 

132... 

133... 

134... 

135... 

136... 

137... 

138. . . 

139... 

140... 
141... 
142... 
143... 
144... 
145... 
146... I 


2.00 
1.50 
2.00 
1.75 
2.00 
3.50 
5.75 
2.00 
3.00 
13.25 
6.50 
18.50 
7.00 
2.00 
10.00 
22.50 
70.00 
19.50 
14.50 


$6.25 
5.00 
4.00 
3.00 
5.00 
6.00 
3.50 
3.00 
5.20 
4.60 
6.25 
3.50 
5.00 
2.50 
3.00 
3.00 
3.50 
5.00 
3.00 


$20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
21.00 
21.00 
8.50 
21.00 
21.00 
21.00 
21.00 
21.00 
21.00 
21.00 
12.50 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 


$10.00 
7.00 
5.00 
4.00 
5.75 
4.00 
6.00 
3.60 
5.00 
4.50 
7.00 
2.50 
2.75 
3.75 
2.90 
5.50 
2.00 
4.00 
3.00 


$7.50 
8.17 
10.75 
7.00 
14.85 
16.70 
11.50 
10.38 
11.50 
6.00 
9.45 
11.50 
10.25 
7.75 
7.50 
7.00 
6.76 
6.00 
6.00 


$2.00 
3.75 
4.50 


2.50 

13.25 

3.50 


.50 
4.00 


2.00 


$2.25 
2.70 
2.70 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
2.25 
2.40 
1.80 
2.25 
2.25 
1.80 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.55 
2.70 
2.70 
2.70 


$0.25 


.50 


.25 
.60 
.25 
.40 


50 


$48.00 
46.62 
46.95 
38.25 
52.10 
5L45 
47.75 
40.88 
44.50 
38.50 
46.55 
40.55 
41.65 
29.25 
39.65 
38.05 
36.95 
37.70 
35.20 


$78.00 
80.00 
78.00 
72.00 
54.00 
102.00 
57.00 
77.00 
60.00 
42.00 
64.50 
72.00 
66.00  ' 
54.00 
40.00 
56.65 
54.08 
46.35 
40.00 


$30.00 
33.38 
31.05 
33.75 
1.90 
50.55 
9.25 
36.12 
15.50 
3.50 
17.95 
31.45 
24.35 
24.75 
.35 
18.60 
17.13 
8.65 
4.80 


13.00 
13.33 
13.00 
12.00 
9.00 
17.00 
9.50 
12.83 
10.00 
7.00 
10.75 
12.00 
11.00 
9.00 
8.00 
11.00 
10.50 
9.00 
8.00 


$2.31 
2.50 
2.39 
2.81 
.21 
2.97 
.97 
2.82 
1.55 
.50 
1.67 
2.62 
2.21 
2.75 
.04 
1.69 
L63 
.96 
.60 


iLoss. 


87731—17- 


^ 


a 

I 


-- '  «i 


^ 


38 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN    THE   UNITED   STATES. 


i 

I 


Table  ll.— COSTS  .VND  PROFITS  OF  GROWING  BEETS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  BY 

FARMS  GROUPED  BY  DISTRICTS,  1913-Continued. 

WISCONSIN,  SOUTHERN  DISTRICT. 


Acres. 

Cost  per  acre. 

Value 

per 

acre. 

Profit 

per 

acre. 

Farm 
num- 
ber. 

Prep- 
ara- 
tion 
of 
soil. 

Hand 
labor. 

Plant- 
ing 
and 
cul- 
tivat- 
ing. 

Lift- 
ing 
and 
haul- 
ing. 

Irri- 
ga- 
tion. 

Fertil- 
izer. 

Seed. 

Mis- 

cel- 

lane- 

ous. 

Total 
ex- 
penses. 

Yield 

per 

acre. 

Profit 
per 
ton. 

147... 

2.50 
2.50 
6.00 
15.00 
2.00 
3.00 
5.00 
2.00 

$6.50 
3.50 
6.00 
5.75 
3.75 
4.50 
3.00 
6.00 

$21.00 
21.00 
21.00 
21.00 
21.00 
21.00 
19.00 
21.00 

13.50 
3.90 
3.50 
3.00 
3.50 
7.00 
3.00 
5.00 

$12.25 

10.26 

13.50 

8.50 

16.00 

10.35 

8.00 

8.50 

$2.70 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 

$0.30 







- 

$46.25 
40.90 
46.25 
40.50 
46.50 
45.10 
37.75 
42.75 

$84.50 
107. 25 
91.00 
66.00 
110.00 
51.75 
66.00 
71.50 

$38. 25 
66.35 
44.75 
25.50 
63.50 
6.65 
28.25 
28.75 

Tom. 
1^  no 

••y  oi 

148... 

16.50      4.02 
14.00      3.20 
12. 00      2. 13 
20. 00      3. 18 
9.00        .74 
12.00      2.35 
1^  nn      'i  oi 

149... 

150... 

151... 

162... 

153... 
154... 

$2.50 

MINNESOTA. 


155... 

1.25 

$2.60 

156... 

5.00 

4.00 

157... 

3.00 

3.00 

158... 

1.75 

2.00 

159... 

3.00 

6.00 

160... 

13.00 

3.00 

161... 

3.00 

3.00 

162... 

9.50 

4.00 

163... 

6.00 

3.00 

164... 

11.00 

2.00 

165... 

5.00 

3.50 

$20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 


$6.25 
3.00 
5.25 
5.75 
2.90 
3.40 
4.00 
5.20 
2.00 
4.30 
3.25 


$7.00 

|l3.00 

10. 25 

16.00 

6.60 

5.40 

7.32 

8.75 

3.79 

9.40 

14.00 


$2.00 
3.00 
3.50 

10.00 
5.00 
3.75 
4.00 


10.00 
3.20 


$1.80 
1.80 
2.50 
2.30 
2.00 
2.00 
1.00 
1.20 
2.00 
1.60 
1.80 


$0.75 


,25 


$39.55 
44.80 
44.50 
56.05 
42.50 
38.30 
39.32 
39.15 
40.79 
40.65 
42.55 


$44.00 
88.00 
49.50 
82.50 
38.50 
91.25 
38.75 
35.00 
48.75 
60.00 
60.00 


$4.45 
43.20 

5.00 
26.45 
U.OO 
52.95 

1.57 
14.15 

7.96 
19.35 
17.45 


8.00 

16.00 

9.00 

15.00 

7.00 

18.25 

7.75 

7.00 

9.75 

12.00 

12.00 


$0.56 
2.70 

.56 
1.76-. 
1.57 
2.90 
1.07 
1.69 

.82 
1.61 
1.45 


IOWA. 


166. 

167. 

168. 

160. 

170.. 

171.. 

172.. 

173.. 

174.. 


21.00  $2. 

175.00     2. 

24.00 

11.00 

4.75 

7.00 

15.00 

100.00 

19.00 


00 
00 
50 
00 
25 
25 
00 
80 
00 


$20.00 
20.00 
19.50 
18.00 
19.00 
19.00 
17.50 
15.50 
16.00 


$1.75 
4.00 
3.40 
4.87 
3.50 
7.75 
3.40 
3.75 
3.15 


$6.35 
6.50 
4.25 
7.35 

10.69 
5.05 
3.90 
4.65 
3.50 


$2.10 
1.40 
1.25 


1.25 
1.25 
.63 
1.25 
1.40 


$1.50 
1.20 
1.80 
1.50 
1.50 
1.50 
1.50 
1.60 
1.30 


$33.70 

35.10 

32.70 

33.72 

j  38.19 

I  36.80 

!  28.93 

29.55 

27.35 


$62.50 

$28.80 

55.00 

19.90 

37.50 

4.80 

48.60 

14.88 

71.55 

33.36 

29.70 

17.10 

35.00 

6.07 

32.50 

2.95 

30.00 

2.65 

12.50 
11.00 
7.50 
9.00 
13.25 
5.50 
7.00 
6.50 
6.00 


$2.30 

1.81 

.64 

1.65 

2.52 

11.29 

.87 

.45 

.44 


NEBRASKA,  GRAND  ISLAND  DISTRICT. 


175. 

176.. 

177.. 

178.. 

179.. 

180.. 

181.. 


3.00 
5.00 
7.50 
5.00 
8.00 
14.00 
5.00 


$2.24 

$7.75 

$5.00 

2.18 

10.00 

3.44 

2.13 

15.33 

1.99 

2.45 

13.00 

2.93 

3.40 

22.00 

2.25 

3.36 

10.30 

3.85 

3.33 

16.70 

2.35 

$3.25 
5.10 
7.02 
2.51 
6.20 
5.81 
4.95 


$8.00 

2.33 

.75 


v4*   aU 


.75 
3.33 

1  Loss. 


$2.55 
1.20 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 


$20.79 
29.92 
30.80 
23.64 
35.85 
29.20 
32.66 


$15.00 
30.00 
45.00 
30.00 
40.00 
40.00 
20.00 


i$5.79 

.08 

14.20 

6.36 

4.15 

10.80 

112.66 


3.00 
6.00 
9.00 
6.00 
8.00 
8.00 
4.00 


i$1.9a 

.01 

1.68 

1.06 

.52 

1.35 

13.17 


I     i      ^. 


I      • 


/ 


I 
/ 

I 


V     V 

/ 


i 


BEET  GROWING. 


39 


Table  11.— COSTS  AND  PROFITS  OF  GROWING  BEETS  IN  THE  UNITED   ST.\TES,  BY 

FARMS  GROUPED  BY  DISTRICTS,  1913— Continued. 

NEBRASKA,  GRAND  ISLAND  DISTRICT— Continued. 


Farm 

num 

ber. 


182. . . 
183... 
184... 
185... 
186... 
187... 
188... 


Cost  per  acre. 


Acres.    Pj|?-| 

tiSi  I  Hand 
of 
soil. 


labor. 


I 


5.60  $3.02 
5.00  i  1.98 


189.. 
190.. 
191.. 
192.. 
193.. 


15.00 
6.00 
28.75 
15.00 
15.00 


3.30 
4.82 
2.25 
4.80 
2.70 


$9.10 
16.00 
11.60 
10.52 
20.00 
17.65 
10.28 


Plant- 
ing 
and 
cul- 
tivat- 
ing 


$3.45 
4.28 
2.40 
3.33 
2.00 
2.20 
1.67 


Lift- 
ing 
and 
haul- 
ing. 


$5.10 
8.25 
5.33 
7.43 
3.21 
8.20 
5.82 


Irri- 
ga-  i 
tion. 


Fertil- 
izer. 


$3.00 


$3.00 
3.01  1.80 
1.00 
2.99  1  3.11 
4.15  I    2.75 


Seed. 


$2.00 
1.30 
2.00 
2.00 
1.75 
1.70 
1.80 


Mis- 

cel- 

lane- 

ous. 


Total 
ex- 
penses. 1 


Value    ProGt    Yield   Profit 

per        per        per       per 

acre.     acre.     acre.     ton. 


$4.33 
13.19 
63 


I 


$25.67  $30.00 

31.81  !  45.00 

27.63  I  20.00 
I  32.91  i  61.00 

30.21  i  17.50   112.71 
I  40.65  i  70.00     29.35 
48.33 


Ton9. 
6.00 

9.00 
4.00 


29. 17  I  77. 50 


28.09  '  12.20 

3.50 

14.00 

15.50 


I  $0.72 

;  1.47 

ji  1.91 
j  2.30 
l«3.63 
i  2.10 
I    3.12 


KANSAS. 


41.50 
45.00 
8.00 
28.00 
36.00 


$4.91 
4.05 
3.02 
4.96 


$15.25 

15.00 

6.88 

16.00 


4.27     15.00 


$2.62 
3.90 
1.98 
2.59 
1.63 


$5.11  $0.72 
3.95  2.40 
1.79  .22 
5.60  1.60 
3.54     2.08 


$2.00 
1.70 
1.60 
1.80 
2.00 


$0.18 
.75 


$30.79  $46.20  '$15.41 
31.00  I  19.25  |ill.75 
16.24  I  13.75  '2.49 
32.55  '  52.80     20.25 


28.52 


39.60  I  11.08 


8.40 

3.50 

2.  .50 

9.60 

7.20 

$1.83 

13.36 

11.00 

2.11 

1.54 


COLORADA,  NORTHERN  DISTRICT. 


194... 

31.00 

$4.50 

$20.00 

$2.40 

$9.15 

$2.60 

$6.50 

$2.00 

$47.15 

1 
$97.38  $50.23 

19.00 

1 

!  $2.ft4 

195. . . 

62.00 

5.00 

20.00 

3.40 

10.90 

4.85 

4.50 

2.00 

50.65 

108.-00     57.35 

18.00 

j    3.19 

196... 

28.00 

6.00 

20.00 

1.58 

8.11 

2.60 

4.30 

2.00 

$0.18 

44.77 

104.28 

59.51 

19.40 

3.07 

197... 

30.00 

5.00 

20.00 

3.20 

13.30 

4.69 

5.00 

2.00 

53.19 

105.30 

52.11 

18.00 

2.90 

198... 

20.00 

4.50 

20.00 

2.35 

12.56 

1.50 

1.60 

1.50 

44.01 

75. 77     31. 76 

13.41 

2.37 

199... 

65.00 

3.26 

20.00 

3.35 

10.00 

5.93 

15.82 

2.00 

60.36 

84.00     23.64 

16.00 

1.48 

200... 

35.00 

3.50 

20.00 

2.65 

13.48 

1.50 

13.00 

1.60 

55.73 

107.97 

1  52.24 

18.30 

2.85 

201... 

76.00 

4.00 

20.00 

2.92 

9.66 

4.75 

11.58 

1.50 

54.41 

71.90 

'  17.49 

13.32 

1.31 

202... 

22.00 

2.70 

16.50 

2.90 

13.47 

1.80 

2.00 

39.37 

81.00 

41.63 

12.00 

3.47 

203... 

69.00 

3.75 

20.00 

3.40 

11.33 

2.50 

2.32 

1.50 

.14 

44.94 

84.38 

39.44 

15.00 

2.63 

204... 

30.00 

4.25 

20.00 

2.90 

16.50 

1.05 

13.00 

1.50 

59.20 

75. 00     15. 80 

15.00 

1.05 

205... 

56.00 

3.30 

20.00 

1.85 

9.20 

.50 

5.00 

2.00 

.58 

42.43 

104.40  ;  61.97 

18.00 

3.44 

206... 

16.50 

6.72 

20.00 

5.20 

19.50 

3.74 

12.25 

2.00 

69.41 

90.75 

21.34 

16.50 

1.29 

207... 

33.00 

4.08 

23.00 

2.40 

12.50 

3.40 

11.00 

2.00 

58.38 

124.00     65.62 

23.33 

2.81 

208... 

13.00 

5.10 

20.00 

2.50 

9.30 

3.10 

7.67     2.00 

49.67 

78.00     28.33 

13.00 

2.18 

209... 

20.00 

3.50 

20.00 

3.50 

6.50 

4.75 

7.00 

2.00 

47.25 

60.00 

12.75 

10.00 

1.28 

210... 

12.  .50 

4.00 

20.00 

2.50 

12.32 

1.75 

11.50  1  2.00 

54.07 

80.96 

26.89 

16.00 

1.68 

211... 

27.00 

3.00 

20.00 

2.50 

9.50 

3.00 

4.00  ;  2.00 

44.00 

84.00 

40.00 

1.5.00 

2.67 

212... 

40.00 

4.00 

20.00 

2.90 

7.00 

2.00 

2.00  ; 

2.00 

.80 

40.70 

45.00 

4.30 

9.00 

.48 

213... 

65.00 

4.50 

20.00 

2.00 

7.40 

1.30 

1.00 

2.00 

38.20 

50.00 

11.80 

10.00 

1.18 

214... 

58.50 

'4.00 

20.00 

1.50 

8.25 

1.25 

1.30 

2.00 

38.30 

62.50  i 

24.20 

12.50 

1.94 

215... 

40.00 

8.89 

20.00 

3.50 

8.80 

1.90 

1.50 ; 

2.00 

46.59 

75.60  ! 

29.01 

14.00 

2.07 

216... 

42.00 

5.25 

20.00 

3.95 

7.80 

6.85 

1.30 

2.00 

47.15 

•61.50  j 

14.35 

12.00 

1.20 

217... 

60.00 

6.00 

20.00 

3.50 

8.50 

5.75 

2.00 

2.00 

47. 75 

60.00  ' 

12.25 

12.00 

1.02 

218... 

39.61 

4.80 

20.00 

2.90 

16.10 

5.12 

3.00 ; 

2.00 

.20 

54.12 

80.00 

25.88 

16.00 

1.62 

219. . . 

12.00 

4.00 

4.83 

3.50 

14.02 

6.53 

4.40  ; 

2.00 

.40 

39.68 

98.04 

58.36 

19.00 

3.07 

»Loss. 


> 


f 


40 


THE   BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY   IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 


BEET  GROWING. 


41 


J 


i 


i 


Table  11.— COSTS  .VND  PROFITS  OF  GROWING   BEETS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,   BY 

FARMS  GROUPED  BY  DISTRICTS,  1913— Continued. 

COLORADO,  NORTHERN  DISTRICT— Continued. 


Farm 

num 

ber. 


Acres. 


220.. 

221.. 

222.. 

223.. 

224.. 

225.. 

226.. 

227.. 

228.. 

229-. 

230.. 

231.. 

232.. 

233.. 

234.. 

235.. 

236-. 

237.. 

238.. 

239.. 

240.. 

241.. 

242.. 

243.. 

244.. 

245-. 

246.. 

247. . 

248.. 

249.. 

250.. 

251... 

252... 

253... 

254... 


50.00 
33.00 
65.50 

5.50 
60.00 
122.00 
45.00 
20.00 
36.00 
60.00 
40.00 
13.00 
38.90 
76.00 
41.00 

8.00 
35.00 
22.00 
39.50 
13.00 
34.00 
22.00 
20.00 
50.00 
25.00 
100.00 
60.00 
17.50 
48.00 
33.00 
55.00 
53.00 
38.80 
60.00 
21.00 


Cost  per  acre. 


Prep- 
ara- 
tion 
of 
soil.. 


$7.20 
4.00 
3.40 
5.25 
8.80 
3.40 
5.00 
4.10 
6.50 
3.80 
4.60 
16.55 
4.60 
5.75 
6.67 
3.50 
3.30 
4.00 
4.59 
3.85 
4.35 
5.10 
3.90 
6.33 
3.90 
6.00 
3.96 
4.40 
3.55 
6.00 
4.50 
4.15 
4.98 
3.09 
6.00 


Hand 
labor. 


$20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
16.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
9.60 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
17.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.75 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
23.19 
20.00 
10.10 


Plant- 
ing 
and 
cul- 

tivat 
ine. 


$3.30 
2.35 
3.00 
2.80 
3.33 
1.70 
2.50 
2.10 
4.50 
2.50 
3.00 
3.90 
2.33 
4.35 
3.95 
4.50 
.90 
3.15 
3.00  ' 
2.00  I 
1.80  j 
3.00  i 
5.50  I 
2.80 
3.40 
4.75 
1.93 
3.35 
2.05 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.83 
2.44 
5.70 


Lift- 
ing 
and 
haul- 
ing. 


$6.70 
9.65 
6.80 
7.50 
9.00 
9.70 
9.60 
11.13 
14.94 
7.00 
9.75 
12.85 
8.10 
8.80 
8.63 
5.50 
8.00 
11.00 
11.57 
10.00 
9.02 
8.90 
12.00 
12.70 
6.50 
13.00 
7.90 
8.40 
6.90 
14.88 
10.33 
10.75 
9.  Off 
5.64 
8.30 


Irri- 
ga- 
tion. 


$6.00 

1.60 
4.60 
4.57 
1.60 
5.90 
5.50 
3.10 
2.39 

.80 
1.85 
4.00 
7.44 

.60 
4.18 
2.08 
2.88 
2.10 
2.25 

.90 
3.00 
2.36 
1.50 
1.20 
1.50 
6.25 
4.70 
3.18 
1.50 
1.50 
2.75 
1.20 
3.18 
2.30 
4.80 


Fertil- 
izer. 


Seed. 


Mis- 

cel- 

lane- 

ous. 


$1.75 

1.50 

.90 

5.00 


.90 
.45 


.50 
2.30 

1.19 
2.44 


5.00 
4.00 


5.00 


5.60 
1.60 
2.00 
1.66 
1.30 
.80 
1.40 
4.00 
2.36 
5.00 
3.00 
16.00 


$2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
1.50 
2.50 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
2.65 
1.00 
2.00 
2.00 
2.51 
2.00 
1.70 
2.00 
1.30 
1.70 
1.50 
1.50 
2.00 
2.00 
1.70 
2.00 
2.00 
1.00 
1.80 
2.00 
1.80 
2.00 
1.60 
2.00 
2.00 


Total 
ex- 
penses. 


Value 

per 

acre. 


$1.00 


1.25 


,50 


20 


$46.95 
41.10 
40.70 
42.62 
45.23 
43.60 
45.05 
42.43 
50.33 
36.10 
42.35 
50.20 
44.47 
42.69 
48.38 
34.58 
36.78 
48.25 
46.71 
38.45 
40.42 
45.86 
46.15 
50.63 
38.60 
54.50 
42.15 
41.63 
36.60 
48.68 
46.28 
43.36 
50.04 
38.47 
52.90 


$60.00 
62.43 
61.50 
55.00 
56.38 
61.50 
60.50 
66.13 
82.35 
52.50 
74.25 
75.00 
70.00 
50.40 
73.50 
38.50 
63.00 
88.00 
94.07 
110.00 
71.02 
84.00 
64.50 
89.25 
38.50 
70.20 
84.00 
84.00 
56.65 
87.78 
74.90 
60.50 
123.26 
80.35 
74.90 


Profit 

per 

acre. 


$13.05 
21.33 
20.80 
12.38 
11.15 
17.90 
15.45 
23.70 
32.02 
16.40 
31.90 
24.80 
25.53 

7.71 
25.12 

3.92 
26.22 
39.75 
47.36 
71.55 
30.60 
38.14 
18.35 
38.62 

1.10 
15.70 
41.85 
42.37 
20.05 
39.10 
28.62 
17.14 
73.22 
41.88 
22.00 


COLORADO,  SOUTHERN  DISTRICT. 


Yield 

per 

acre. 


Profit 

per 

ton. 


Tons. 

12.00 

$1.09 

11.00 

1.94 

12.00 

1.73 

10.00 

1.24 

11.00 

1.01 

12.00 

1.49 

11.00 

1.40 

11.50 

2.06 

15.25 

2.10 

10.00 

1.64 

13.50 

2.36 

15.00 

1.65 

14.00 

1.82 

9.00 

.86 

14.00 

1.79 

7.00 

.56 

12.00 

2.19 

16.00 

2.48 

16.65 

2.84 

20.00 

3.58 

13.25 

2.31 

16.00 

2.38 

12.00 

1.53 

17.00 

2.27 

7.00 

1.01 

13.00 

1.21 

16.00 

2.62 

16.00 

2.65 

11.00 

1.82 

16.50 

2.37 

14.00 

2.04 

11.00 

1.56 

21.40 

3.42 

14.40 

2.91 

14.00 

1.57 

255... 
256... 
257... 
258... 
259... 
260... 
261... 
262... 


30.00 
23.00 
60.00 
10.00 
38.00 
18.00 
25.00 
40.00 


$5.03 
6.32 
2.50 
2.55 
5.60 
5.32 
6.40 
5.00 


$18.00 
13.76 
12.50 
20.00 
15.50 
15.50 
13.00 
21.00 


$3.40 
3.40 
2.40 
2.09 
2.40 
2.71 
3.60 
3.75 


$6.10 
10.55 
9.01 
5.75 
8.00 
8.75 
5.31 
4.25 


$6.33 


$2.20 


$5.71 
2.25 
.63 
.75 
4.10 
.99 
.40 

1.50  J j  2.00  ;$0.50 

1  Loss. 


2.78 

2.30 

1.75 

2.00 

2.50 

10.50 

2.50 

15.00 

4.00 

5.10 

2.00 

$46.77 
41.36 
30.79 
33.64 
48.60 
52.27 
35.81 
38.00 


$78.00 
84.50 
65.34 
63.18 
62.50 
63.25 
20.63 
18.00  |i20.00 


$31.23 
43. 14 
34.55 
29.54 
13.90 
10.98 

1 15. 18 


12.00 

13.00 

12.10 

9.00 

10.00 

11.50 

3.75 

3.00 


$2.60 

3.32 

2.86 

3.28 

1.39 

.95 

14.05 

'6.67 


\ 


r 


«      V 


/ 


TABLE  ll.-COSTS   AND   PROFITS   OF  GROWING   BEETS  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES,  BY 

FARMS  GROUPED  BY  DISTRICTS— Continued. 

COLORADO,  SOUTHERN  DISTRICT— Continued. 


Farm 
num- 
ber. 


263.- 

264.. 

265.- 

266.. 

267.. 

268.. 

269-. 

270.. 

271.. 

272-. 

273-. 

274.- 

275.. 

276.. 

277.- 

278.. 

279.- 

280... 

281 -- 

282.. 

2m... 

284... 
285-.. 
286--. 
287... 

288-.. 


Acres. 


289... 
290... 
291... 


292. 
293. 
294. 
295. 
296. 
297. 
298. 
299. 
300. 
301. 


7.00 

163.00 

12.00 

3.00 
10.00 
21.56 

4.50 
15.00 
15.00 
125.00 
14.00 
14.00 

4.00 

6.00 
13.00 
31.00 

8.00 
45.00 
49.00 
34.00 
13.00 
16.00 
10.00 

3.25 
21.00 
53.00 


Cost  per  acre. 


Prep- 
ara- 
tion 
of 
soil. 


$2.76 
4.55 
4.84 
3.80 
3.00 
6.44 
2.50 
3.30 
5.57 
4.86 
4.90 
5.62 
3.30 
3.68 
7.21 
3.50 
4.65 
4.11 
3.20 
5.05 
5.13 
4.05 
5.90 
9.80 

10.27 
3.96 


Hand 
labor. 


$16.00 
17.00 
15.00 
11.00 
7.25 
17.75 
14.00 
14.00 
18.00 
14.00 
14.99 
20.00 
19.00 
18.79 
18.00 
16.50 
20.00 
15.25 
15.50 
14.00 
14.15 
14.25 
16.00 
16.75 
16.00 
14.50 


Plant- 
ing 
and 
cul- 

tivat 
ing. 


$3.53 
1.27 
2.20 
2.90 
1.75 
4.97 
2.10 
2.10 
2.50 
2.88 
1.90 
3.50 
4.00 
1.75 
4.30 
1.30 
3.00 
2.40 
2.30 
4.80 
3.35 
1.80 
2.80 
5.00 
3.13 
3.40 


Lift- 
ing 
and 
haul- 
ing. 


$7.50 
8.25 
8.91 
4.80 


12.60 

12.00 
9.50 

10.50 
7.66 

10.55 
7.98 

13.50 
6.50 
8.00 

10.50 
7.25 

10.75 
4.66 
6.70 
7.40 
8.75 
4.25 

11.00 

10.00 

10.29 


Irri- 
ga- 
tion. 


$1.70 
2.25 
1.30 
.90 
.20 
3.82 
3.50 
1.50 
2.75 
2.28 
2.50 
3.40 
4.12 
1.43 
3.52 
4.00 
2.00 
.39 
1.50 
1.50 
3.50 
2.75 
3.00 
3.00 
1.48 
3.62 


Fertil- 
izer. 


Seed. 


Mis- 

cel- 

lane- 

ous. 


$4.00 
3.00 

.48 


12.55 
9.00 

7.33 
1.36 
4.25 
1.25 
16.50 
2.75 
1.00 
2.90 
4.00 


3.26 

5.25 
2.20 

17.00 
5.00 
6.86 

13.20 


$2.00 
2.50 
2.00 
1.50 
1.70 
2.10 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
1.20 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
1.50 
1.80 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
1.70 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
1.70 


$0.07 


.10 


.25 


.20 
.50 


Total 

e-x- 

penses, 


$37.49 
38.89 
34.73 
24.90 
14.00 
60.23 
45.10 
32.40 
48.65 
35.04 
40.54 
43.75 
62.42 
36.90 
43.73 
40.50 
43.40 
34.90 
32.42 
34.05 
40.48 
35.80 
50.95 
52.55 
49.74 
50.67 


Value 
per 

acre. 


$72.00 
83.38 
42.00 
14.30 
10.00 
94.40 

125.00 
93.75 

100.00 
60.00 
95.  .58 
60.38 

116.55 
65.00 
69.00 
74.75 
87.00 
69.30 
82.15 
91.00 

112.50 
75.00 
27.00 
91.36 
82.50 
88.58 


Profit 

per 

acre. 

Yield 

per 

acre. 

$34.51 

Tons. 
12.00 

44.49 

14.50 

7.27 

7.00 

110.60 

2.60 

14.00 

2.00 

34.17 

16.00 

79.90 

20.00 

61.35 

15.00 

51.35 

16.00 

24.96 

10.00 

55.  W 

15.10 

16.63 

10.50 

54.13 

21.00 

28.10 

10.00 

25.27 

12.00 

34.25 

13.00 

43.60 

15.00 

34.40 

11.00 

49.73 

13.25 

56.95 

14.00 

72.02 

18.00 

39.20 

12.50 

123.95 

4.50 

38.81 

16.00 

32.76 

15.00 

37.91 

17.30 

Profit 
per 
ton. 


COLORADO,  MONTE  VISTA  DISTRICT. 


12.00 
10.00 
42.00 


$3.00 
3.75 
2.25 


$18.00 
18.00 
16.50 


$1.65 
2.00 
3.10 


COLORADO,  GRAND  JUNCTION  DISTRICT. 


12.00 
14.33 
35.00 
40.00 
18.00 
7.00 
14.00 
16.00 
20.00 
65.00 


$4.64 
4.64 
4.36 
3.79 
7.64 
4.63 
6.87 
6.00 
7.30 
8.01 


$20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
21.50 
20.00 
21.50 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 


$3.25 
2.75 
2.77 
2.50 
3.36 
3.48 
3.10 
3.90 
4.80 
7.72 


$10. 17 

10.77 

8.67 

7.97 

9.87 

18.39 

10.12 

4.33 

5.62 

12.75 


$5.80 
5.80 
3.95 
2.00 
4.20 
2.83 
2.90 
3.39 
4.75 
6.10 


$5.38 
3.50 
1.25 
4.33 
6.17 

11.96 
4.53 
1.09 
L57 


$2.70 
2.70 
2.70 
2.40 
2.70 
2.25 
2.40 
2.25 
2.85 
2.63 


$3.13 


.65 
.49 
.35 
.23 
.25 
.38 


$46.56 
52.04 
49.08 
39.91 
54.25 
58.24 
59.20 
44.63 
46.66 
59.16 


$69.55 
76.68 
60.00 
70.00 
75.00 

129.09 
52.50 
16.50 
30.30 
49.34 


$22.99 

24.64 

10.92 

30.09 

20.75 

70.85 

16.70 

1 28. 13 

1 16. 30 

19.82 

13.00 

14.33 

12.00 

14.00 

15.00 

22.14 

10.00 

3.00 

6.00 

9.75 


$2.88 
3.07 
1.01 

14.08 

12.00 
2.14 
4.00 
4.09 
3.21 
2.50 
3.65 
1.58 
2.58 
2.  SI 
2.11 
2.63 
2.91 
3.13 
3.75 
4.07 
4.00 
3.14 

15.32 
2.43 
2.18 
2.19 


$7.25 

$0.75 

$3.00   $2.25 

1 
$8.33   $14.23 

$61.42 

$17. 19 

10.50 

$1.64 

7.25 

.75 

3.00 

3.00 

37.75 

38.15 

.40 

7.00 

.06 

2.25 

1.00 

2.77 

27.87 

42.42 

14.55 

7.00 

2.  OS 

$1.77 

1.72 

.91 

2.15 

1.38 

3.20 

1.67 

19.38 

12.73 

11.01 


> 


1  Loss. 


V- 


i 


42 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Table  11— COSTS  AND  PROFITS  OF  GROWING  BEETS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  BY 

FARMS  GROUPED  BY  DISTRICTS,  1913— Continued. 

MONTANA. 


Acres 

Cost  per  acre. 

Value 

per 

acre. 

Profit 

per 

acre. 

Yield 

per 

acre. 

Farm 
num- 
ber. 

Prep- 
ara- 
tion 
of 
soil. 

Hand 
labor. 

Plant- 
ing 
and 
cul- 
tivat- 
ing. 

Lift- 
ing 
and 
haul- 
ing. 

Irri- 
ga- 

tlOTl. 

Fertil- 
izer. 

Seed. 

Mis- 

cel- 

lane- 

ous. 

Total 
ex- 
penses. 

Profit 
per 
ton. 

302... 
303... 
304... 
305... 
306... 
307... 
308... 
309... 
310... 
311... 
312. . . 
313. . . 
314... 
315... 
316... 
317... 
318... 
319... 
320... 

22.00 
47.00 
95.00 
15.00 
24.00 
32.00 
26.00 
12.00 
20.00 
25.00 
39.50 
27.15 
12.00 
28.00 
3.25 
25.00 
53.00 
56.00 
30.00 

$9.50 
6.00 
5.50 
7.00 
7.00 
7.00 
4.00 
4.25 
6.00 
5.00 
4.00 
5.92 
8.00 
6.06 
5.19 
4.50 
8.66 
3.50 
5.00 

$20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.50 
20.00 
20.00 
25.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 

$2.35 
3.60 
3.10 
2.55 
4.70 
4.70 
1.90 
3.50 
2.00 
2.30 
2.25 
2.52 
4.78 
3.85 
3.00 
3.40 
6.75 
2.10 
3.33 

$13.75 
10.30 

9.50 
15.50 

9.00 
15.85 
14.62 
10.50 
11.50 
10.50 
12.25 
10.59 

6.88 
13.74 

8.63 
21.00 
17.00 
11.25 
17.66 

$3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
4.50 
2.00 
2.50 
4.00 
2.50 
1.60 
2.28 
4.00 
3.10 
4.40 
2.33 
6.^25 
2.50 
3.80 

$2.00 
12.44 
7.00 
6.00 
10.00 
10.00 

10.00 

.90 

.84 
1.25 

2.42 
5.00 
6.66 

$1.50 
2.00 
1.80 
1.50 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
2.00 
1.50 
2.00 
2.00 
1.50 
1.60 
1.70 
2.00 
2.00 

$0.10 

1.00 
1.00 

1.00 
.20 
.10 

1.30 
.91 

1.00 

$52.50 
57.34 
49.90 
55.55 
55.70 
64.05 
44.52 
42.75 
56.50 
43.30 
42.10 
43.71 
46.16 
50.59 
44.17 
57.93 
64.08 
47.26 
59.45 

$74.75 
87.60 
76.70 
72.87 
52.80 
94.87 
93.00 
46.25 
69.00 
90.00 
80.16 
92.29 
31.85 
57.05 
31.87 

106.25 
78.40 
67.44 
86.95 

$22.55 
30.26 
26.80 
17.32 
12.90 
30.82 
48.48 
3.50 
12.50 
46.70 
38.06 
48.58 

»14.31 
6.46 

112.30 
48.32 
14.32 
20.18 
27.50 

Tom. 

13.00 

14.60 

13.00 

12.50 

9.60 

16.50 

15.50 

9.25 

12.00 

15.00 

13.36 

15.18 

5.18 

9.04 

5.10 

17.00 

14.00 

12.00 

14.42 

$1.73 
2.07 
2.06 
1.39 
1.30 
1.87 
3.13 
.38 
1.04 
3.11 
2.85 
3.20 

12.76 
.71 

12.41 
2.84 
1.02 
1.68 
1.91 

321. 
322. 
323. 
334. 
335. 
326. 
327. 
328. 
329. 
330. 
331. 


333. 
334. 
335. 


337. 


340. 
341. 


IDAHO. 


35.00 

6.00 

23.00 

60.00 

40.00 

110.00 

9.00 

65.00 

9.00 

50.00 

30.00 

19.00 

34.00 

8.00 

7.00 

3.00 

10.00 

80.00 

30.00 

,6.50 

7.00 


$3.06 
3.55 
6.80 
5.75 
4.08 
5.10 
5.23 
5.36 
6.67 
4.90 
5.19 
5.20 
4.00 
5.71 
4.67 
4.81 
6.00 
3.62 
3.15 
6.52 
6.52 


$30.00 
13.60 
25.00 
31.83 
17.25 
36.71 
20.00 
22.70 
21.20 
21.50 
20.00 
20.00 
22.25 
21.50 
23.00 
21.00 
19.00 
19.50 
18.60 
20.50 
18.50 


$1.93 
4.00 
1.92 
2.40 
2.30 
2.17 
2.14 
2.63 
3.40 
2.40 
1.90 
2.40 
2.10 
3.42 
2.80 
2.27 
5.75 
2.22 
1.49 
3.61 
3.61 


$6.80 

$0.05 

$5.47 

$2.25 

$49.56 

$60.00 

$10.44 

12.00 

$0.87 

6.50 

.77 

3.70 

2.25 

34.37 

50.00 

15.63 

10.00 

1.56 

6.76 

1.35 

12.83 

2.40 

57.05 

85.00 

27.95 

17.00 

1.64 

6.85 

2.18 

6.00 

2.25 

$0.10 

57.36 

72.50 

15.14 

14.60 

1.04 

10.00 

.25 

2.55 

36.43 

75.00 

38.57 

16.00 

2.57 

7.96 

.10 

4.29 

1.95 

68.28 

78.00 

19.72 

15.60 

1.26 

11.28 

2.40 

3.55 

2.25 

46.85 

58.50 

11.65 

11.70 

1.00 

16.66 

3.72 

2.77 

2.70 

56.54 

82.50 

25.96 

16.50 

1.57 

11.60 

2.55 

2.22 

2.25 

49.89 

70.00 

20.11 

14.00 

1.44 

11.93 

3.60 

1.40 

2.25 

47.98 

72.50 

24.52 

14.50 

1.69 

8.40 

2.70 

3.25 

2.25 

43.69 

60.00 

16.31 

12.00 

1.36 

13.20 

2.70 

2.25 

45.75 

56.00 

10.25 

11.20 

.92 

6.25 

3.20 

10.00 

2.25 

50.05 

75.00 

24.95 

15.00 

1.66 

9.75 

1.70 

5.85 

2.25 

50.18 

77.65 

27.37 

15.51 

1.76 

16.00 

3.73 

6.65 

2.10 

.16 

59.11 

90.00 

30.89 

18.00 

1.72 

6.10 

2.20 

9.10 

1.80 

.40 

47.68 

71.55 

23.87 

14.31 

1.67 

12.50 

2.70 

3.03 

1.60 

.20 

50.68 

49.65 

11.03 

9.93 

1.10 

6.22 

1.78 

2.76 

2.25 

.12 

38.47 

57.50 

19.03 

11.50 

1.65 

5.90 

3.56 

.70 

2.25 

.67 

36.22 

42.75 

6.53 

9.00 

.73 

12.24 

2.85 

2.25 

47.97 

61.75 

13.78 

13.00 

1.06 

9.44 

2.85 

2.25 

43.17 

42.75 

1.42 

9.00 

1.05 

1  Loss. 


4 


4  * 


h. 


< 


/ 


•  > 


< 


BEET  GROWING, 


43 


TABLE  U.-COSTS  AND  PROFITS  OF  GROWING  BEETS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  BY 

FARMS  GROUPED  BY  DISTRICTS,  1913— Continued. 

UTAH,  NORTHERN  DISTRICT. 


Farm 
num- 
ber. 


342... 
343... 
344... 
345... 
346... 
347.... 
348... 
349... 
350... 
351... 
352... 
353... 

356... 

366... 

367... 

358... 

359... 

360... 

361... 

362. . . 

363... 

364... 

365... 

366.. 

367. . 

368... 

369.. 


Cost  per  acre. 


Acres. 


370... 
371... 
372. . . 
373... 
374... 
375... 
376... 
377... 
378... 
379... 
380... 
381... 
382... 


15.00 

6.00 

4.50 

10.00 

4.50 

3.60 

3.00 

13.00 

11.00 

5.00 

7.00 

9.00 

27.00 

50.00 

60.00 

10.00 

32.00 

loaoo 

12.00 

35.00 

4.00 

10.00 

150.00 

10.00 

14.00 

16.00 

21.00 

9.00 


Prep- 
ara- 
tion 
of 
soil. 


$3.13 
9.41 
3.80 
4.50 
4.56 
4.65 
6.11 
3.80 
2.65 
3.35 
4.60 
4.05 
6.31 
2.98 
4.25 
3.75 
3.65 
4.00 
3.10 
2.15 
2.80 
2.50 
2.34 
3.63 
3.85 
4.38 
3.38 
4.60 


Hand 
labor. 


$13. 74 
18.00 
15.50 
17.05 
18.70 
13.60 
12.00 
37.25 
14.00 
20.10 
29.38 
25.81 
35.66 
20.00 
24.34 
13.93 
19.62 
18.50 
14.00 
22.40 
18.80 
9.20 
18.00 
30.03 
14.89 
15.50 
31.46 
21.00 


Plant- 
ing 
and 
cul- 
tivat- 
ing. 


$5.00 
3.90 
3.03 
3.40 
2.98 
2.98 
3.10 
3.00 
2.50 
3.00 
2.50 
2.50 
1.95 
2.05 
1.90 
2.10 
2.30 
1.32 
2.40 
L88 
2.00 
1.20 
2.30 
3.38 
1.85 
1.55 
1.25 
2.39 


Lift- 
ing 
and 
haul- 
ing. 


$6.60 

18.50 

17.50 

11.30 

10.70 

13.50 

6.63 

U.25 

11.33 

n.95 

9.95 

22.78 

n.62 

5.00 

9.16 

9.60 

7.88 

13.90 

15.05 

10.55 

13.05 

8.65 

2.40 

11.25 

5.17 

9.38 

10.50 

16.50 


Irri- 

ga- 

tion. 


$3.06 
1.64 
2.40 
2.50 
2.08 
2.28 
8.75 
2.50 
L50 
4.85 
2.00 
2.50 
3.00 
2.80 
4.60 
2.80 
.50 
2.50 
.75 
.60 
1.20 


Fertil- 
izer. 


$14.00 

12.98 

6.38 

3.00 

5.61 


.59 
.33 

1.40 
.28 

2.31 


6.00 


9.63. 
11.30 
4.44 
2.96 
2.62 
3.25 
4.00 
2.00 
2.50 
2.25 
3.50 
4.50 
4.50 

.40 
14.80 

.40 
6.67 

9.00 


Seed. 


$2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
1.80 
2.91 
L80 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
1.95 
L80 
2.25 
L25 
2.25 
2.25 
L65 
1.95 
1.80 
2.25 
2.25 
2.10 
1.80 


Mis- 

cel- 

lane- 

ous. 


$0.10 


Total 
ex- 
penses. 


$47.78 
66.58 
49.86 
43.55 
47.54 
38.71 
44.74 
60.05 
34.13 
55.23 
61.98 
64.33 
62.65 
37.70 
49.75 
38.13 
37.75 
44.97 
38.80 
43.23 
44.60 
27.70 
27.39 
65.38 
28.74 
41.13 
48.97 
57.50 


Value 

I)er 

acre. 


$95.33 

100.00 

100.00 

88.35 

83.70 

50.00 

46.00 

82.50 

90.00 

99.75 

125.88 

98.75 

101.60 

70.00 

77.00 

58.18 

66.50 

80.75 

9a25 

76.00 

81.00 

76.00 

76.00 

83.12 

74.99 

71.25 

80.75 

85.50 


Profit   Yield 


per 
acre. 


$47.55 
33.42 
50.14 
44.80 
36.16 
1L29 
1.26 
22.45 
55.87 
44.52 
63.90 
34.42 
38.85 
32.30 
27.25 
20.05 
28.75 
35.78 
51.45 
32.77 
36.40 
48.30 
48.61 
17.74 
46.25 
30.12 
3L78 
28.00 


per 
acre. 


Tons. 
20.50 

20.00 

20.00 

19.00 

18.00 

10.00 

laoo 

16.50 

18.00 

21.00 

26.50 

19.75 

20.30 

14.00 

15.40 

12.25 

14.00 

17.00 

19.00 

16.00 

18.00 

16.00 

16.00 

17.50 

15.79 

15.00 

17.00 

18.00 


Profit 
per 
ton. 


$2.32 

1.67 

2.51 

2.36 

2.01 

1.13 

.13 

L36 

3.10 

2.12 

2.41 

1.74 

1.91 

2.31 

L77 

1.64 

2.05 

2.10 

2.71 

2.05 

2.02 

3.02 

3.04 

LOl 

2.93 

2.01 

1.87 

1.56 


UTAH,  CENTRAL  DISTRICT* 


5.00 
23.00 

8.00 
25.00 
15.00 

6.50 
12.00 

6.50 

5.00 
10.00 
14.00 
60.00 

7.00 


$9.20 

3.89 

8.20 

7.84 

3.60 

5.75 

4.15 

6: 00 

4.08 

5.53 
5.28 
3.40 
4.50 


$21.06 
18.80 
16.90 
14.45 
12.60 
19.55 
13.25 
11.22 
15.80 
15.00 
15.00 
11.00 
15.00 


$2.50 
2.62 
4.50 
7.20 
2.70 
3.00 
2.00 
1.70 
3.00 
3.70 
3.00 
1.75 
2.90 


$10.90 

9.34 
11.80 

9.40 
14.20 
12.60 

7.50 
10.15 

7.50 
13.75 
14.25 

7.13 
14.75 


$2.80 
1.85 
2.00 
5.50 
1.60 
3.55 
2.50 
2.10 
1.95 
1.52- 
1.75 
1.35 
3.50 


$9.30 

9.67 

16.68 

12.00 

6.50 

17.50 

24.00 

4.00 

4.00 

7.50 

7.19 

.62 

1  Loss. 


$2. 
2. 
2. 
2. 
2. 
2. 
2. 
2. 
2. 
2. 
2. 
2. 
2. 


25 
25 
25 
25 
25 
25 
25 
25 
25 
25 
25 
25 
25 


$58.01 
48.42 
62.33 
58.64 
43.45 
64.20 
55.65 
.!  37.42 
.|  38.58 
.  49.25 
.1  48.72 
.i  27.50 
.!  42.90 


$79.00 
70.00 
65.00 
70.00 
85.00 
70.00 
75.00 
7L50 
75.00 
75.00 
100.00 
40.00 
90.00 


$20.99 
21.58 

2.67 
11.36 
41.55 

5.80 
19.35 
34.08 
36.42 
25.75 
51.28 
12.50 
47.10 


15.80 
14.00 
13.00 
14.00 
17.00 
14.00 
15.00 
14.30 
15.00 
15.00 
20.00 
8.00 
18.00 


$L33 

L54 

.21 

.81 

2.44 

.41 

1.29 

2.38 

2.43 

1.72 

2.56 

1.56 

2.63 


■/ 


I 


I 

i 


44 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTBY  IN   THE  UNITED   STATES. 


Table  11.— COSTS  AND  PROFITS  OF  GROWING   BEETS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  BY 

FARMS  GROUPED  BY  DISTRICTS,  1913— Continued. 

UTAH,  CENTRAL  DISTRICT— Continued. 


Acres. 

Cost  per  acre. 

Value 

per 

acre. 

Profit 

per 

acre. 

Yield 

per 

acre. 

Farm 
num- 
ber. 

Prep- 
ara- 
tion 
of 
soil. 

Hand 
labor. 

Plant- 
ing 
and 
cul- 
tivat- 
ing. 

Lift- 
ing 
and 
haul- 
ing. 

Irri- 
ga- 
tion. 

Fertil- 
iser. 

Seed. 

Mis- 

cel- 

lane- 

ous. 

Total 
ex- 
penses. 

Profit 
ficr 
ton. 

383... 
384... 
385... 
386... 
387... 
388... 
389... 
390. 

5.00 
14.00 
13.00 
8.00 
5.00 
4.00 
9.00 
2.00 
5.00 

$4.83 
5.70 
5.63 
4.85 
5.43 
4.60 
6.25 
4.50. 
6.40 

S15.00 
18.20 
18.80 
13.13 
14.40 
21.36 
20.05 
16.00 
18.20  ' 

13.50 
2.90 
1.95 
3.20 
3.93 
4.50 
4.25 
2.00 
4.30 

S12.50 
11.69 
11.25 
12.69 
14.27 
12.60 
9.35 
6.00 
11.04 

f2.48 
1.15 
6.80 
2.75 
6.65 
2.75 
5.65 

?8.00 
5.57 
8.80 
5.40 

24.80 
2.25 
7.13 

$2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 
2.25 

SO.  10 
.10 

$48.56 
47.46 
55.48 
44.27 
71.73 
50.31 
55.03 
30.75 
52.29 

JIOO.OO 
74.50 
90.00 
61.25 

105.00 
80.00 
85. 00 
80.00 
92.00 

$51.44 
27.04 
34.52 
16.98 
33.27 
29.69 
29.97 
49.25 
39.71 

Tons. 
20.00 

14.90 

18.00 

12.25 

21.00 

16.00 

17.00 

16.00 

18.40 

$2.57 
1.81 
1.92 
1.39 
1.58 
1.86 
1.76 
3  08 

391... 

10.00 

2.16 

ARIZONA. 


392.. 


10.00  I$5.69  i$17.00  $3.93 


$10.12  $3.15 


$2.25   $0.05   $42.19 


S50.00 


$7.81 


10.00 


$0.78 


CALIFORNIA,  ALVARADO  DISTRICT. 


393... 
394... 


18.00 
12.00 


$4.28 
4.00 


$16.20 
14.50 


$1.10 
.80 


$6.21 
5.26 


$6.25 


$0.25 


$1.30 
2.00 


$35.59 
26.56 


$60.00 
40.00 


$24.41 
13.44 


12.00 
8.00 


$2.03 
1.68 


CALIFORNFA,  SPRECKELS  DISTRICT. 


395... 
396... 
397... 
398. . . 
399... 
400... 
401... 
402... 


210.00 
97.00 

110.00 
40.00 

165.00 
96.00 
10.00 
55.00 


$5.46 

$14. 70 

$0.38 

7.82 

11.10 

.98 

6.21 

12.00 

1.00 

9.78 

22.43 

.70 

8.11 

17.24 

1.18 

4.63 

21.09 

1.00 

5.77 

12.83 

.98 

6.07 

7.50 

2.00 

$5.57 
7.36 
7.60 
13.75 
11.00 
7.41 
5.10 
5.34 


$3.75 
4.19 
2.20 
3.10 
3.75 


$1.32 
2.20 
1.87 
1.76 
2.26 
1.43 
.83 
1.32 


$27. 43 
33.21 
32.87 
50.62 
42.89 
39.31 
25.51 
22.23 


$86.24   $58.81 
49.95     16.74 


54.00 
122. 85 
90.30 
90.38 
47.50 
39.48 


21.13 
72.23 
47.41 
51.07 
21.99 
17.25 


14.00 
11.10 
12.00 
19.50 
14.00 
20.08 
9.50 
6.00 


$4.20 
1.51 
1.76 
3.70 
3.39 
2.54 
2.31 
2.88 


CALIFORNIA,  BETTERAVIA  DISTRICT. 


403... 

24.00 

$3.94 

$25.30 

$1.36 

$14.00 

$5.00 

$2.16 

$51.76  $112.20 

$60.44 

22.00 

$2.75 

404... 

170.00 

5.45 

18.00 

1.96 

4.05 

8.00 

2.50 



39.96 

46.80 

6.84 

9.00 

.76 

405... 

95.00 

4.78 

20.06 

1.19 

9.64 

5.10 

2.40 

43.17 

75.23 

32.06 

14.75 

2.17 

CALIFORNIA,  OXNARD  DISTRICT. 


406. . . 

124.00 

$4.54 

i 
$14.94   $1.44 

$7.85 

1 
....... 

$2.75 

$31.52 

$76.22 

* 

.$44.  70 

10.30 

$4.34 

407... 

40.00 

3.73 

17.92     1.76 

9.65 

10.75 

2.50 

36.81 

75.53 

39.22 

13.00 

3.02 

408. . . 

95.00 

4.53 

16.31 

1.39 

6.92 

$7.58 



2.25 

$0.53 

39.51 

65.45 

25.94 

10.80 

2.40 

409... 

63.00 

7.96 

15.08 

3.20 

7.64 

5.60 

2.40 

41.88 

71.40 

29.52 

10.10 

2.92 

410. . . 

40.00 

4.84 

16.15 

1.53 

8.68 

.90 

.25 

1.92 

34.27 

74.90 

40.63 

14.00 

2.90 

411... 

450.00 
1,857.00 

4.89 
10.15 

17.25  I  1.70 
17.00     1.9.S 

3.75 
6.06 

2.20 
2.50 



29.79 
37.64 

90.00 
78.00 

60.21 
40.36 

15.00 
11.42 

4.01 

412... 

3.53 

^^    4 


t  9 


*         t 


I 

/ 

I 


■\ 


< 


*         ♦ 


••        f 


BEET  GROWING. 


45 


T.\BLE  11.— COSTS  AND  PROFITS  OF  GROWING  BEETS  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES,  BY 

FARMS  GROUPED  BY  DISTRICTS,  1913- Continued. 

CALIFORNIA,  LOS  ANGELES  DISTRICT. 


Farm 
num- 
ber. 


413.. 

414.. 

415.. 

416.. 

417.. 

418.. 

419.. 

420.. 

421.. 

422.. 

423.. 

424.. 

425.. 

420.. 

427.. 

428.. 

429.. 

430.. 

431.. 

432.. 

433.. 

434.. 

435. ! 

436. . 

437. . 

438. . , 

439.. 

440. . . 

441... 

442... 

443... 

444... 

445. . . 

446. . . 

447... 

448... 

449. . . 

450... 

451... 

452. . . 

463... 


Acres. 


85.00 

15.00 

6.00 

38.00 

25.00 

50.00 

28.00 

250.00 

85.00 

8.00 

52.00 

65.00 

137.00 

19.00 

35.00 

55.00 

ICO.  00 

60.00 

130.00 

10.00 

115.00 

75.00 

370.00 

250.00 

10.00 

200.00 

135.00 

44.00 

185.00 

110.00 

136.00 

110.00 

20.00 

40.00 

35.00 

20.00 

49.00 

253.00 

310.00 

17.00 

33.00 


Cost  per  acre. 


Prep- 
ara- 
tion 
of 
soil. 


$8.04 
7.34 
4.54 
8.49 
7.60 
8.20 
8.75 
5.84 
8.71 
4.60 
5.85 
7.75 
4.78 
6.71 
7.60 
5.40 
10.37 
4.28 
4,41 
5.06 
6.50 
9.16 
5.50 
10.60 
8.25 
8.59 
5.51 
5.80 
9.20 
4.73 
4.57 
6.04 
9.76 
4.16 
6.40 
5.12 
5.95 
5.85 
10.42 
5.50 
S.83 


Hand 
labor. 


$19.63 
18.25 
12.20 
18.75 
14.65 
16.70 
13.70 
9.36 
14.95 
13.00 
14.35 
13.00 
11.25 
14.21 
18. 25 
10.80 
15.80 
13.00 
13.50 
11.30 
12.27 
11.52 
12.23 
13.74 
23.60 
17.25 
17.95 
15.50 
16.30 
13.50 
16.96 
15.30 
15.95 
10.85 
16.85 
16.85 
16.35 
14.25 
14.25 
15.42 
16.00 


Plant- 
ing 
and 
cul- 

tivat- 
int^. 


$2.50 
2.80 
2.00 
3.50 
2.95 
2.38 
1.52 
2.29 
2.50 
1.54 
3.00 
2.50 
3.15 
3.20 
2.80 
3.00 
2.33 
2.25 
1.32 
2.10 
1.74 
2.53 
2.50 
4.50 
2.68 
3.30 
2.00 
2.80 
2.60 
2.70 
1.00 
2.39 
2.50 
2.50 
3.60 
2.50 
2.25 
2.37 
3.28 
2.05 
1.60 


Lift- 
ing 
and 
haul- 
ing. 


$8.32 

13.75 

9.70 

1L50 

n.oo 

13.20 

5.45 

4.84 

9.85 

5.00 

5.99 

7.80 

6.25 

9.55 

9.55 

7.00 

8.10 

9.00 

10.04 

5..80 

8.72 

4.11 

6.20 

9.24 

13.40 

13.25 

n.90 

4.75 

9.95 

5.40 

3.72 

7.44 

7.65 

5.15 

10.00 

11.50 

n.50 

15.50 

7.45 

8.23 

10.50 


Irri- 
ga- 
tion. 


$1.23 
1.33 
3.00 


7.32 
3.50 
8.00 
2.49 
.74 
L18 
2.00 
4.28 
3.77 


2.00 

L50 

2.00 

.30 

2.08 
2.72 
10.50 
2.44 
1.42 
2.14 
7.00 
4.40 
6.00 
4.00 
2.33 
2.43 


4.84 
.34 
.50 
3.96 
6.58 
LIO 
2.00 
2.50 


Fertil- 
izer. 


$3.96 
8.00 


5.88 


Seed 


6.75 


9.20 


2.39 


5.55 
LOO 


$2.16 
2.40 
L92 
2.16 
2.40 
2.40 
2.40 
6.00 
2.40 
L50 
2.40 
2.40 
2.40 
2.40 
2.50 
1.80 
2.25 
L68 
2.40 
2.40 
2.64 
2.40 
2.40 
2.16 
2.40 
2.16 
2.40 
2.40 


.73  I  2.40 
.30  i  2.40 
2.40 
2.40 
2.40 
2.40 
2.40 
2.40 
2.40 
2.16 
2.16 
L92 
2.30 


21 


Mis- 

cel- 

lane- 

ous. 


$0.10 


1  Loss. 


Total 
ex- 
penses 


Value  j  Profit 
per        per 


$41.88 
49.83 
4L36 
44.50 
38.60 
50.20 
35.32 
36.33 
46.78 
26.38 
32.77 
35.45 
32.11 
39.84 
40.70 
30.00 
47.10 
32.21 
3L97 
35.86 
33.95 
34.83 
39.33 
42.68 
5L75 
46.69 
52.31 
36.65 
47.18 
33.03 
30.98 
36.00 
38.26 
29.90 
39.59 
38.87 
42.41 
46.71 
38.87 
35.12 
38.73 


acre. 


$69. 75 

131. 15 
72.00 

101. 15 
78.00 

107.64 
40.00 
30.80 
73.01 
62.50 
8L00 
65.00 
40.25 
73.36 

159.80 
52.00 
98.40 
6L33 
76.05 
49.35 
69.60 
39.20 
42.00 
57.60 

159.90 
82.50 
99.75 
90.95 
93.60 
63.00 

100.62 
48.00 
89.05 
35.00 
89.60 

113.90 

105. 40 
8L00 
54.00 
86.72 
82.50 


acre. 


$27.87 
8L32 
30.64 
56.65 
39.40 
57.44 
4.68 
15.53 
26.23 
36.12 
48.23 
29.55 
8.14 
33.52 

119.10 
22.00 
51.30 
29.12 
44.08 
13.49 
35.65 
4.37 
2.67 
14.92 

108. 15 
35.81 
47. 44 
54.30 
46.42 
29.97 
69.64 
12.00 
50.79 
5.10 
50.01 
75.03 
62.99 
34.29 
15.13 
5L60 
43.77 


Yield 

per 

acre. 


Profit 
per 
ton. 


Tons. 

15.50 

2L50 

12.00 

17.00 

13.00 

18.40 

8.00 

4.40 

14.90 

10.00 

13.50 

10.00 

7.00 

13.10 

23.50 

8.00 

16.00 

12.00 

13.00 

7.00 

9.60 

6.70 

8.00 

9.60 

26.00 

15.00 

19.00 

17.00 

16.00 

12.00 

17.20 

12.00 

13.00 

5.00 

16.00 

17.00 

17.00 

13.50 

9.00 

14.10 

15.00 


SLSO 
3.78 
2.55 
3.33 
3.(» 
3.12 
'  .59 
!  »  L26 
I  L76 
3.61 
I  3.57 
2.96 
1.16 
2.56 
5.07 
2.75 
3.21 
2.43 
3.39 
L93 
3.71 
.65 
.33 
1.55 
4.16 
2.39 
2.50 
3.19 
2.90 
2.50 
4.05 
LOO 
3.91 
L02 
3.13 
4.41 
3.71 
2.54 
L68 
3.66 
2.92 


I  ,■ 


A^lt 


_.*,  ,-  >-      ■■  1" 


-^■.   •FB-/T8i| 


M 

t 


46  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES. 

The  wide  differences  in  some  of  the  elements  of  cost  as  shown  in 
the  foregoing  table  are  due  to  various  causes.  The  more  important 
of  the  differences  shown  for  different  farms  are  due  to  differences 
in  the  character  of  soils,  the  condition  of  the  land  before  it  was 
prepared  for  the  crop,  the  cost  of  labor  and  distances  of  the  fields 
from  the  factories,  the  cost  of  seed  and  fertilizer,  climatic  conditions, 
and,  in  the  West,  differences  in  the  cost  of  irrigation.  A  cause  of 
minor  importance,  because  it  applies  only  to  a  relatively  few  com- 
parisons, is  the  fact  that  in  some  cases  the  various  elements  could  not 
be  segregated.  Thus  the  column  showing  the  cost  of  planting  and 
cultivating  in  a  few  instances  has  only  the  cost  of  planting,  the 
farmer  not  being  able  to  separate  the  cost  of  cultivating  from  other 
operations  requiring  the  use  of  teams  and  implements. 

The  variation  in  the  cost  of  seed  is  due  to  a  difference  in  price, 
which  is  sometimes  as  much  as  5  cents  a  pound,  and  also  to  a  differ- 
ence in  the  quantity  used  by  the  different  planters,  the  prescribed 
quantity  ranging  from  about  15  to  20  pounds  per  acre. 

There  is  a  wide  variation  in  the  cost  of  fertilizer  materials.  In 
some  districts  none  is  used,  in  others  only  a  barnyard  manure  is 
used,  and  in  still  others  there  is  some  use  of  commercial  fertilizers. 
Usually  no  cost  has  been  allowed  for  barnyard  manure  except  that 
for  hauling  and  spreading.  This  is  because  generally  there  was  no 
market  value  for  such  manure. 

There  is  considerable  variation  in  the  cost  of  the  preparation  of 
the  soil,  due  to  its  character  or  condition.  Variations  in  cost  of 
cultivation  (excluding  hoeing)  are  due  to  differences  in  condition  of 
the  soil,  to  seasons,  and  to  the  cost  of  labor.  On  some  farms,  under 
exceptionally  favorable  conditions,  the  cultivator  is  used  only  once  or 
twice  during  the  season,  while  in  other  cases,  on  account  of  excessive 
rains  or  for  other  reasons,  the  crop  is  cultivated  seven  or  eight  and 
in  a  few  instances  more  times.  The  cost  of  a  single  cultivation  ranges 
from  30  to  50  cents  per  acre.  The  wages  of  a  man  and  team  varies 
from  about  $2.50  to  $5  per  day,  depending  upon  the  rate  of  pay  for 
the  man  and  also  upon  the  number  of  horses  employed. 

The  hand  labor  when  done  by  contract  is  practically  uniform  in  a 
particular  district.  This  charge  ranged  in  various  districts  from  $16 
or  $17  to  $22  per  acre. 

The  cost  of  plowing  out  the  beets  differs  on  account  of  the  charac- 
ter of  the  soil  and  the  cost  of  labor,  but  in  a  general  way  it  is  deter- 
mined bv  the  rate  allowed  for  a  man  and  team. 

In  soils  that  are  easily  Avorked  a  gi'eater  area  can  be  covered  in  a 
day,  both  in  the  preparation  of  the  soil,  in  the  cultivation  and  in  plow- 
ing out,  thereby  lessening  the  cost  i)er  acre.  In  some  sections,  par- 
ticularly in  the  Lake  States  and  Montana  and  northern  Colorado 


) 


Y 


/    » 


/ 


> 


i 


BEET  GROWING. 


47 


where  the  fall  rains  and  snow  set  in  before  the  beets  are  harvested, 
the  cost  of  plowing  out  is  increased. 

There  are  great  differences  in  the  cost  of  irrigation.  No  irrigation 
is  required  in  the  region  of  the  Great  Lakes,  but  in  all  the  western 
districts  beets  can  not  usually  be  grown  successfulh'  without  irriga- 
tion. When  subirrigation  can  be  employed  the  cost  is  lower,  but  when 
water  must  be  run  between  the  rows,  the  cost  amounts  usually  to  from 
$3  to  $5  per  acre  for  the  water  and  the  labor  of  putting  it  on  the  land. 
There  is  also  an  expense  for  maintenance  of  main  and  lateral  ditches. 
Furthermore,  in  some  districts,  water  is  put  on  the  land  only  once  or 
twice  during  a  season,  while  in  other  districts  it  is  applied  as  many 
as  five  or  six  times. 

The  cost  of  "  lifting  and  hauling  "  varies  according  to  the  produc- 
tion, and  also  according  to  the  distance  of  the  fields  from  the  factory 
or  weigh  station.  The  cost  of  lifting  or  plowing  out  is  substantially 
the  same  whether  the  production, is  5  tons  or  15  tons  per  acre.  It  is 
obvious,  however,  that  the  greater  the  yield  the  greater  must  be  the 
expense  of  hauling,  and  also  that  the  expense  of  hauling  increases 
with  the  distance  to  be  hauled. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  there  is  a  reasonable  explanation  for  practically 
all  differences  appearing  in  the  table.  These  explanations  are  obvi- 
ous to  the  practical  farmer  familiar  with  the  cultivation  of  beets. 

Section  9.  Average  costs  and  profits  of  individual  growers  for  three  years. 
The  actual  results  from  the  cultivation  of  beets  in  any  locality 
can  be  determined  only  by  securing  accurate  data  from  every  farmer 
growing  beets  in  the  community.  This  is  obviously  impracticable,  if 
not  impossible.  In  the  course  of  this  investigation  an  effort  was 
made  to  secure  from  each  farmer  visited  data  for  three  consecutive 
years.  This  was  not  possible.  Many  of  the  farmers  visited  did  not 
have  sufficient  data  from  which  to  construct  a  reasonably  accurate 
statement  for  3  years,  and  in  some  sections  factories  had  operated 
only  2  years.  Some  had  not  grown  beets  in  the  same  locality  for  3 
years.  Of  the  453  farms  represented  in  Table  11  there  were  244  for 
which  complete  3-year  statements  could  be  made. 


♦ 


y- 


Mi 


l< 


i 


48 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 


The  distribution  of  these  244  farms  among  the  States  visited  and 
the  percentage  of  the  total  shown  in  Table  11  are  given  in  the  state- 
ment below  by  States: 


Ohio  and  Indiana 

Michigan,  lower  peninsula 

Wisconsin 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Nebraska 

Kansas 

Colorado 

Montana. 

Idaho 

Utah 

California 

Total 


Number 

reporting 

for 

1913. 


30 
97 
27 
11 

9 
14 

5 
108 
19 
21 
50 
61 


1452 


Number 
reporting 

for 
3  years. 


15 

18 

23 

8 

5 

9 

4 

66 

4 

10 

41 

41 


244 


Per  cent 
of  total 

for 
3  years. 


50.0 
18.6 
85.2 
72.5 
55.6 
64.3 
80.0 
61.1 
21.1 
47.6 
80.2 
67.5 


53.9 


1  One  farm  in  Arizona  shown  in  Table  11  is  not  included  here. 

It  is  seen  that  more  than  half  of  the  farms  represented  in  Table  11 
furnished  reports  for  3  years.  It  will  be  noted,  however,  that  cost 
statements  were  secured  from  comparatively  few  farmers  in  some  of 
the  States.  Those  States  for  which  the  smallest  number  of  3-year 
statements  were  secured,  namely,  Iowa,  Kansas,  and  Montana,  have 
only  one  factory  each,  so  the  data  for  those  States  are  as  representative 
as  for  others.  It  is  particularly  noticeable  that  a  very  small  percent- 
age of  the  farmers  visited  in  Michigan  could  supply  data  for  3  years. 
On  the  other  hand,  taking  into  account  the  number  of  farmers  visited 
in  Colorado,  California,  and  Utah,  the  high  percentage  of  those  who 
were  able  to  supply  costs  for  3  years  is  rather  remarkable. 

The  total  costs  and  profits  per  acre  by  districts  and  by  States  are 
shown  in  Table  12  below.  This  table  includes  all  those  farms  rep- 
resented in  Table  12  already  discussed,  for  which  were  secured  com- 
plete statements  for  3  years.  The  true  averages  of  expense  and  profit 
are  shown. 


BEET  GROWING. 


49 


Table  12.-C0STS  AND  PROFITS  OF  BEET  GROWING,  BY  FARMS  AND  BY  DISTRICTS; 
AVERAGES  FOR  THE   THREE   YEARS,  1911,  1912,  AND   1913. 

OHIO— INDIANA. 


MICHIGAN,  LOWER  PENINSULA. 


9) 


Farm 
No. 

Acres. 

Yield 
per  acre. 

Expense 
per  acre. 

Expense 
per  ton. 

Profit 
per  acre. 

Profit 
per  ton. 

3*vfiar  avera&r63   

6 
4 

31.07 
48.33 

Tons. 
9.03 

12.38 

$37.08 
38.93 

$4.11 
3.14 

$8.08 
23.65 

$0.S9 

1.91 

15 

12.67 

14.58 

31.59 

2.17 

44.04 

3.02 

18 

7.28 

10.13 

37.12 

3.66 

13.53 

1.34 

19 

13.17 

12.42 

38.39 

3.09 

23.73 

1.91 

• 

20 

11.33 

12.06 

39.04 

3.24 

21.26 

1.76 

21 

5.25 

9.00 

32.83 

3.65 

16.67 

1.85 

23 

15.67 

13.13 

35.88 

2.73 

29.75 

2.27 

24 

12.00 

8.44 

34.63 

4.10 

10.12 

1.20 

25 

8.67 

14.62 

37.72 

2.58 

35.96 

2.46 

28 

9.67 

12.22 

41.00 

3.35 

25.81 

2.11 

27 

15.00 

13.22 

38.67 

2.92 

27.44 

2.08 

28 

15.67 

11.89 

38.45 

3.23 

33.86 

2,85 

29. 

6.00 

14.76 

41.93 

2.84 

33.60 

2.28 

30' 

10.08 

11.91 

40.22 

3.38 

24.84 

2.09 

Average  f  15  farms) 

14.79 

11.86 

37.70 

3.18 

23.59 

1.99 

i 


3-vear  averages ................... 

47 

15.57 

9.38 

$44.86 

$4.78 

$4.68 

$0.50 

50 

43.74 

9.77 

42.16 

4.31 

5.51 

.56 

108 

1.83 

9.58 

47.20 

4.93 

12.87 

1.34 

109 

2.25 

6.67 

40.57 

6.08 

1.27 

.19 

110 

2.33 

9.01 

48.41 

5.38 

10.90 

1.21 

65 

25.25 

11.15 

38.77 

3.48 

24.96 

2.24 

eo 

23.50 

7.18 

33.96 

4.73 

4.84 

.67 

96 

20.53 

8.55 

40.93 

4.79 

3.89 

.46 

37 

12.17 

11.64 

41.15 

3.54 

23.19 

1.99 

38 

5.20 

11.41 

42.92 

3.76 

22.34 

1.96 

1 

39 

7.17 

12.38 

47.80 

3.86 

20.24 

1.63 

41 

16.67 

14.28 

38.29 

2.68 

37.12 

2.60 

42 

7.50 

11.33 

37.38 

3.30 

21.43 

1.89 

55 

9.97 

9.23 

39.05 

4.23 

10.82 

LIT 

, 

57 

20.49 

10.79 

38.65 

3.58 

17.72 

1.64 

73 

28.33 

13  34 

37.65 

2.82 

31.02 

2.33 

102 

38.00 

13.01 

41.00 

3.15 

25.66 

1.97 

103 

41.67 

11.19 

48.34 

4.32 

2L55 

1.93 

Averaee  f  18  farms) 

17.90 

10.92 

41.15 

3.77 

17.80 

1.63 

i 


< 


1*^ 


50 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  IXDUSTBY  IX   THE  UNITED   STATES. 


Table  12.— COSTS  AND  PROFITS  OF  BEET  GROWING,  BY  FARMS  AND  BY  DISTRICTS; 
AVERAGES  FOR  THE  THREE  YEARS,  1911,  1912,  AND  1913— Continued. 

WISCONSIN,  NORTHERN  DISTRICT. 


Farm 
No. 

Acres. 

Yield 
per  acre. 

Expense 
per  acre. 

Expense 
per  ton. 

Profit 
per  acre. 

Profit 
per  ton. 

Tom. 

3-year  averages 

129 

1  83 

l.**  82 

$47.08 
37.54 

$3.41 
3.55 

$35.83 
25.93 

$2.59 
2.45 

131 

1.58 

10.58 

■ 

132 

2.00 

10.17 

53.40 

5.25 

7.60 

.75 

133 

5.33 

20.05 

54.20 

2.70 

66.12 

3.30 

135 

1.67 

12.63 

41.73 

3.30 

34.07 

2.70 

136 

2.00 

10.08 

44.58 

4.42 

15.92 

1.5S 

137 

11.83 

11.00 

40.50 

3.68 

25.50 

2.32 

138 

4.50 

10.44 

46.59 

4.47 

16.02 

1.53 

139 

13.17 

12.20 

40.86 

3.35 

32.35 

2.65 

140 

4.67 

9.43 

40.47 

4.29 

16.10 

1.71 

141 

3.00 

11.00 

30.76 

2.80 

30.74 

2.79 

142 

24.00 

8.47 

40.00 

4.72 

2.36 

.28 

143 

18.83 

11.46 

38.43 

3.35 

20.59 

1.80 

144 

68.33 

13.23 

38.14 

2.88 

29.95 

2.26 

145 

17.00 

10.41 

38.19 

3.67 

15.43 

1.48 

Averse  (15  farms) . . 

11.98 

11.83 

39.77 

3.36 

23.83 

2.02 

WISCONSI 

N,  SOUTHERN  DISTRICT. 

3-year  averages 

152 

3  67 

12  82 

$48.54 
40.42 

$3.79 
2.60 

$32.05 
40.67 

$2.  .50 
2.01 

153 

15.00 

15.56 

154 

8.67 

13.92 

43.67 

3.14 

26.44 

1.90 

147 

2.17 

14.54 

47.40 

3.26 

36.30 

2.50 

148 

2.92 

16.20 

40.75 

2.52 

52.59 

3.25 

149 

7.33 

14.00 

46.25 

3.30 

35.90 

2.56 

150 

14.67 

12.00 

40.50 

3.38 

21.55 

1.80 

151 

3.00 

18.00 

45.20 

2.51 

55.22 

3.07 

Average  (8  farms) . . . 

7.18 

14.15 

42.72 

3.02 

33.68 

2.38 

MINNESOTA. 

3-year  averages 

155 

1  08 

10  15 

$41.23 

44.78 

i 
$4.06 

2.83 

$14.62 
42.26 

$1.44 
2.67 

156 

3.83 

15.83 

# 

157 

3.33 

9.70 

45.20 

4.66 

8.15 

.84 

160 

15.67 

14.27 

37.16 

2.60 

34.20 

2.40 

t 

162 

12.50 

12.65  i 

45.20 

3.57 

18.07 

1.43 

163 

7.67 

10.37 

40.94 

3.95 

10.91 

i.a> 

164 

14.33 

12.19 

38.36 

3.15 

22.57 

1.85 

165 

4.33 

11.08 

41.63 

3.76 

13.76 

• 

1.24 

Average  (8  farms) 

t                                      1 

7  84           to  PiA  \ 

40.77 

i 

\           1 

3.25  ! 

1 

22.84 

1.82 

1 

BEET  GROWING. 


IOWA. 


51 


Table  12.— COSTS  AND  PROFITS  OF  BEET  GROWING.  BY  FARMS  AND  BY  DISTRICTS; 
AVERAGES  FOR  THE  THREE  YEARS,  1911,  1912,  AND  1913— Continued. 


/ 


Farm 
No. 

Acres. 

Yield 
per  acre. 

Expense  '  Expense      Profit        Profit 
per  acre,    per  ton.    per  acre,    per  ton. 

3-vear  average 

166 
14>7 
169 
172 

173 

29.00 
125.67 
11.00 
16.17 
61.67 

Tons. 
13.98 

13.39 

13.67 

10  91 

7.89 

$34.29 
36.44 
39.40 
32.93 
31.01 

1 
1 

$2.45  j      $35.62            $2.55 

■ 

2.72  '        30.51  '           2.28 
2.88  !        34.40              2.52 
3.02  :        21.61              1.98 
3.93  '         8.45              1.07 

I 

Average  (5  farms) 

48.70 

11.92 

34.71 

2.91  !       25.12  ;           2.11 

f    Y 


NEBRASKA,  GRAND  ISLAND  DISTRICT. 


3-year  average 

177 

8.00 

18.00 

137. 15 

$2.06 

$52.85 

$2.94 

178 

4.33 

8.85 

24.35 

2.75 

19.88 

2.25 

179 

10.00 

8.93 

35.66 

3.99 

9.01 

1.01 

181 

6.67 

8.50 

36.26 

4.27 

0.24 

.73 

182 

.3.83 

9.13 

28.33 

3.10 

17.32 

1.90 

184 

18.33 

10.18 

32.12 

3.15 

18.79 

1.85 

185 

11.67 

13.00 

33.05 

2.54 

31.98 

2.46 

• 

187 

15.00 

14.00 

41.08 

2.93 

28.92 

2.07 

• 

188 

12.33 

16.66 

30.47 

1.83 

52.84 

3.17 

Average  (9  farms) 

10.02 

12.39 

34.12 

2.75 

27.84 

2.25 

KANSAS. 


3-year  average 

189 

37.17 

7.06 

$32. 34 

$4.58 

$4.54 

$0.&4 

190 

48.33 

8.05 

34.05 

4.23 

6.75 

.84 

191 

41.00 

5.10 

21.38 

4.19 

4.21 

.83 

192 

39.00 

9.83 

32.65 

3.32 

17.65 

l.SO 

Average  (A  farms) 

41.38 

7.52 

30.20 

4.02 

8.20 

1.09 

COLORADO,  NORTHERN  DISTRICT. 


f 


3-vear  average 

212 
213 

36.67 
65.00 

10.77 
12.00 

$41.59 
39.00 

$3.86 
3.25 

$17.87 
21  00 

$1.66 

1.75 

214 

62.17 

14.37 

39.63 

2.76 

32.24 

2.24 

215 

40.00 

12.00 

43.53 

3.64 

21.27 

1.77 

■ 

216 

39.00 

11.36 

44.  V9 

3.94 

14.30 

1.26 

217 

61.67 

12.88 

46.84 

3.64 

20.35 

1.58 

• 

218 

30.45 

17.18 

53.92 

3.14 

35.97 

2.09 

219 

9.67 

18.19 

40.45 

2.22 

58.82 

3.23 

220 

50.00 

14.00 

46.37 

3.31 

31.13 

2.22 

221 

37.00 

12.53 

42.09 

3.36 

26.83 

2.14 

225 

90.67 

14.57 

44.63 

3.06 

32.31 

2.22 

226 

39.00 

12.56 

45.07 

3.59 

26.06 

2.08 

227 

20.00 

11.50 

41.76 

3.63 

22.45 

1.95 

228 

35.33 

13.29 

49.33 

3.71 

22.82 

1.72 

231 

11.00 

15.00 

48.65 

3.24 

26.35 

1.76 

232 

46.30 

15.44 

43.77 

2.83 

39.19 

2.54 

233 

45.67 

10.14 

44.27 

4.37 

11.79 

1.16 

234 

44.00 

13.52 

47.01 

3.48 

22.86 

1.69 

52 


XHE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTEY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


.> 


COLOBADO,  NORTHERN  DISTBICT-Continued. 


3-year  average  (continued). 


Farm 
No. 


Acres. 


Yield      Expense 
per  acre,    per  acre. 


237 

31.00 

238 

37.50 

239 

13.67 

240 

31.33 

243 

50.00 

244 

21.67 

246 

52.00 

247 

14.33 

249 

54.33 

250 

41.67 

254 

25.67 

194 

26.33 

195 

54.33 

197 

26.67 

199 

48.33 

202 

19.67 

204 

30.00 

205 

42.00 

207 

22.50 

209 

20.00 

211 

17.67 

Average  (39  farms). 


37.19 


COLORADO,  SOUTHERN  DISTRICT. 


3-year  average . 


Average  (21  farms) . 


268 

271 

272 

273 

274 

275 

276 

277 

278 

279 

281 

282 

283 

.284 

287 

288 

255 

257 

259 

260 

264 


13.35 
15.00 
93.67 
9.67 
14.00 
4.67 
6.00 
13.33 
20.33 
8.00 
33.67 
41.  a3 
13.00 
19.00 
21.00 
70.00 
23. 33 
36.00 
40.33 
15.33 
116.00 


13.72 
16.00 
12.82 
17.43 
11.17 
20.82 
13.00 
11.20 
11.49 
12.67 
12.86 
11.10 
17.33 
13.23 
16.33 
15.34 
11.49 
11.25 
9.69 
10.96 
13.80 


29.86 


13.12 


$57. 57 
48.65 
37.29 
44.80 
44.11 
62.62 
40.05 
40.97 
39.07 
40.95 
33.55 
33.76 
40.28 
35.82 
46.67 
39.79 
43.61 
30.18 
50.02 
50.23 
38.96 


$4.20 
3.04 
2.91 
2.57 
3.95 
3.01 
3.08 
3.66 
3.40 
3.23 
2.61 
3.04 
2.32 
2.71 
2.86 

2.59 

3.80 

2.68 

5.16 

4.58 

2.82 


$29.08 
51.35 
46.65 
63.58 
19.18 
52.94 
32.79 
20.05 
27.00 
29.45 
45.78 
31.11 
65.22 
43.55 
43.16 
49.31 
27.19 
32.68 
8.14 
6.51 
38.62 


40.11 


3.06 


37.46 


$2.12 
3.21 
3.64 
3.65 
1.72 
2.54 
2.52 
1.79 
2.35 
2.33 
3.56 
2.80 
3.76 
3.29 
2.64 
3.21 
2.37 
2.90 
.84 
.59 
2.80 


2.86 


BEET  GROWING. 


53 


Table  12.— COSTS  AND  PROFITS  OF  BEET  GROWING,  BY  FARMS  AND  BY  DISTRICTS; 
AVERAGES  FOR  THE  THREE  YEARS,  1911,  1912,  AND  1913— Continued. 

COLORADO,  GRAND  JUNCTION  DISTRICT. 


1    r 


:3-year  average . 


Average  (6  farms) . 


3-year  average. 


Average  (4  farms) . 


^         > 


/ 


A 


■• 


> 


( 


Farm 
No. 


292 
294 
295 
296 
298 
301 


Acres. 


18.67 
48.33 
58.33 
20.00 
13.33 
46. 67 


34.22 


Yield 
per  acre. 


Tons. 
15.36 
15.10 
16.51 
13.63 
14.15 
13.67 


Expense 
per  acre. 


$51.08 
47.45 
41.70 
53.36 
62.34 
64.02 


Expense      Profit        Profit 
per  ton.    per  acre,    per  ton. 


$3.33 
3.14 
2.53 
3.91 
4.41 
4.68 


$31.08  . 
34.24  \ 
44.87  i 
15.90 
11.95  : 
5.21  i 


14.99 


51.45 


3.43 


27.14 


MONTANA. 


311 
312 
313 
314 


30.00 
35.00 
26.44 
14.83 


26.57 


14.40 
13.60 
13.11 

7.82 


12.90 


$43.92 
42.18 
42.58 

47.84 


43.56 


$3.05 
3.10 
3.25 
6.12 


3.38 


$46.61 
40.01 
38.36  j 
1.11  ! 


36.03 


IDAHO. 


UTAH,  NORTHERN  DISTRICT. 


$2.02 

2.27 

2.72 

1.17 

.84 

.38 


1.81 


.$3.24 

2.94 

2.93 

.14 


2.79 


3-vear  average 

334 

5  33 

13  85 

$48.60 
56.10 

$.3.51 
3.31 

$20.63 
28.68 

$1.49 
1.69 

335 

7.67 

16.96 

337 

10.67 

10.78 

50.01 

4.64 

3.89 

.36 

322 

9.33 

12.64 

36.26 

2.87 

26.95 

2.13 

'                                     • 

323 

21.67 

17.78 

53.58 

3.01 

35.30 

1.99 

324 

60.00 

15.17 

58.67 

3.87 

17.16 

1.13 

326 

93.33 

16.24 

60.15 

3.70 

21.04 

1.30 

329 

6.67 

13.25 

49.37 

3.73 

16.88 

1.27 

330 

58.33 

14.43 

48.10 

3.33 

24.04 

1.67 

333 

30.67 

15.32 

50.37 

3.29 

2«5.21 

1.71 

Average  ( 10  farms) 

30.37 

15.30 

54.45 

3.56 

22.06 

1.44 

r- 

.3-year  average 

342 

15.00 

20  17 

$47. 69 
6(>.60 

$2. 36 
3.33 

$46.09 
30.70 

$2.29 
1.54 

343 

4.33 

20.00 

344 

4.17 

20.00 

49.86 

2.49 

43.74 

2.19 

345 

25.00 

19.87 

41.77 

2.10 

50.61 

2.55 

346 

4.50 

19.33 

50.39 

2.61 

39.51 

2.04 

347 

3.50 

13.33 

43.38 

3.25 

23.29 

1.75 

349 

15.33 

16.62 

63.64 

3.83 

19.46 

1.17 

350 

12.67 

16.97 

33.46 

1.97 

51.41 

3.03 

' 

351 

4.00 

19.25 

53.22 

2.76 

37.05 

1.92 

352 

6.33 

23.34 

58.66 

2.51 

50.64 

2.17 

353 

10.33 

18.44 

61.44 

3.33 

30.78 

1.67 

354 

27.67 

18.31 

57.91 

3.16 

33.66 

1.84 

355 

41.67 

11.70 

37.12 

3.17 

21.38 

1.83 

877ai— 17 5 


/  V 


54  THE  BEET  SUGAR   INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES. 

UTAH,  NORTHERN  DJSTRICT-Continued. 


3-year  average  (continued). 


Farm 
No. 


Acres. 


Average  (26  farms). 


356 

358 

359 

360 

361 

362 

363 

364 

365 

366 

367 

368 

369 


Yield 
per  acre. 


Expense 
per  acre. 


50.00 
22.33 
86.67 
12.00 
35.00 

4.00 
10.00 
125.00 
10.00 
12.00 
18.33 
20.33 

7.00 


22.58 


Tons. 
15.61 

14.37 

17.00 

17.67 

16.00 

16.00 

17.33 

16.96 

16.67 

16.53 

14.09 

19.05 

18.00 


150.92 
38.04 
44.97 
37.03 
43.30 
42.20 
28.57 
27. 47 
56.98 
29.26 
39.85 
53.27 
57.56 


Expense 
per  ton. 


16.73  42.04 


$3.26 
2.65 
2.65 
2.10 
2.71 
2.64 
1.65 
1.62 
3.42 
1.77 
2.83 
2.80 
3.20 


Profit 
per  acre. 


$27.13 
29.51 
34.47 
45.38 
31.37 
29.80 
52.18 
51.98 
20.94 
48.03 
25.60 
35.66 
26.65 


2.51 


37.54 


UTAH,  CENTRAL  DISTRICT. 


3-year  average . 


:1 


Average  (15  farms). 


3-year  average 


371 

372 

373 

374 

375 

376 

377 

378 

379 

380 

3S3 

384 

387 

389 

391 


23.00 
12.67 
23.00 
13.00 
6.50 
12.00 
6.50 
5.00 
10.00 
15.67 
8.33 
12. 67 
7.00 
7.33 
5.00  I 


13.50 

$47.82 

$3.54 

$19.68 

9.46 

58.42 

6.18 

»  12. 86 

15.91 

60.01 

3.77 

16.84 

17.15 

43.54 

2.54 

39.57 

14.33 

64.73 

4.52 

4.52 

13.00 

56.65 

4.36 

6.35 

12.87 

36.13 

2.81 

26.18 

1.5.00 

38.58 

2.57 

36.42 

18.00 

53.00 

2.94 

37.00 

20.00 

48.72 

2.44 

51.28 

20.00 

45.36 

2.27 

54.64 

14.05 

46.25 

3.29 

21.85 

24.81 

76.54 

3.09 

42.56 

17.32 

55.41 

3.20 

31.18 

18.87 

55.43 

2.94 

38.90 

11.18 


15.86 


52.43 


3.30 


25.50 


CALIFORNIA,  SPRECKELS  DISTRICT. 


Average  (6  farms) 


*  Loss. 


Profit 
per  ton. 


$1.74 
2.05 
2.03 
2.57 
1.96 
1.86 
3.01 
3.06 
1.26 
2.91 
1.82 
1.87 
1.48 


2.24 


$1.46 
U.36 
1.06 
2.31 
.32 
.49 
2.03 
2.43 
2.06 
2.56 
2.73. 
1.56 
1.72 
l.SO 
2.06 

1.61 


■ft 


BEET  GROWING. 


55 


V 


/ 


Taale  12.— costs  and  profits  of  beet  growing,  by  FARMS  AND  BY  DISTRICTS; 
AVERAGES  FOR  THE  THREE  YEARS,  1911,  1912,  AND  1913— Continued. 

CALIFORNIA,  OXNARD  DISTRICT. 


3-year  average. 


Average  (5  farms) . 


Farm 
No. 


406 
407 
410 
411 
412 


Acres. 


115.33 

74.00 

50.00 

416.67 

1,640.00 


'Yield 
per  acre. 


Toru. 
11.00 

9.51 

15.27 

14.36 

10.57 


459.20 


11.34 


Expense 
per  acre. 


$31.48 
30.92 
34.72 
29.31 
36.58 


Expense 
per  ton. 


$2.86 
3.25 
2.27 
2.04 
3.46 


34.78 


3.07 


Profit 
per  acre. 


Profit 
per  ton. 


$45.80  I 
31.00  I 

48.03  ! 
56.85  i 

34.04  ! 


38.97 


-i 


CALIFORNIA,  LOS  ANGELES  DISTRICT. 


2.90 


■  3-year  average. 


**  ■  4 


$3.84 

1.83 
2.98 

2.77 

2.61 

2.18 

•  r 


Average  (30  farms) . 


i 


413 
414 
415 

418 

421 

423 

424 

425 

427 

428 

429 

430 

431 

433 

434 

435 

436 

437 

43S 

439 

440 

441 

442 

443 

444 

448 

449 

450 

451 

452 


66.50 
27.67 
12.67 
45.00 
76.33 
129.00  \ 
150.00 
124.33 
35.00 
55.00 
146.67 
83.67 
126.67 
81.67 
75.00 
436.67 
250.00 
30.00 
161.67 
135.00 
34.67 
156.67 
110.00 
124.00 
90.00 
18.67 
49.67 
253.00 
213.33 
13.67 


110. 41 


16.91 
17.43 
14.53 
16.01 
13.30 
10.29 

6.74 

9.57 
21.17 

9.33 
16.91 
10.97 
14.32 

9.28 
10.90 
14.82 
10.40 
13.56 
13.30 
18.50 
20.46 
17.82 
15.83 
17.01 

9.63 
17.48 
17.42 
15.00 
9.52 
14.63 


13.48 


$43.61 
41.29 
38.13 
45.73 
43.15 
31.25 
30.16 
3262 
38.17 
31.47 
47.58 
31.91 
36.23 
34.77 
36.37 
3&84 
43.78 
39.11 
46.17 
49.65 
40.18 
46.98 
34.41 
30.86 
33.67 
38.58 
41.56 
46.40 
39.67 
35.13 


39.69 


$258 
2  37 
2.62 
2.86 
3.25 
3.04 
4.47 
3.41 
1.80 
3.37 
2  81 
291 
2.53 
3.75 
3.34 
2.62 
4.21 
2  89 
3.47 
2.68 
1.96 
2.64 
2.17 
1.81 
3.50 
2.21 
2.38 
3.09 
4.17 
2.40 


294 


$40.20 
65.70 
49.03 
45.16 
30.82 
32  29 
11.03 
21.22 
99.43 
27.53 
53.01 
25.29 
46.78 
30.50 
26.96 
50.88 
15.92 
44.26 
31.06 
45.01 
69.29 
59.11 
53.49 
66.49 
7.22 
71.83 
64.90 
35.60 
20.71 
48.90 


38.34 


$4.16 
3.26 
3.15 
3.96 
3.22 


3.44 


$23S 

3.77 

3.38 

2.82 

2.32 

3.14 

1.M 

2.22 

4.70 

2.85 

3.13 

2.31 

3.27 

3.29 

2.47 

3.43 

1.53 

3.26 

2.34 

2.43 

3.39 

3.32 

3.38 

3.91 

.75 

4.11 

3.72 

2.37 

2.  IS 

3.34 


2S4 


^*"  ■*■-■ 


'"'^""' <'--'-'''-^'-' 


56 


THE  BEET   SUGAR   IXDUSTRY  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES. 


BEET  GROWING. 


57 


rA-     1 


I 


No  details  of  cost  are  shown  in  the  foregoing  table  for  the  reason 
that  the  variations  in  the  several  items  of  cost  are  sufficiently  indi- 
cated in  Table  11.  The  size  of  farms  ranges  from  less  than  two  acres 
to  several  hundred  and  the  average  yield  per  acre  shows  a  very  wide 
range.  These  facts  indicate  the  general  representative  character  of 
the  farms  included.  The  farms  represented  in  this  table  probably 
show  results  considerably  above  the  average  of  all  farms  in  the 
respective  districts  because  more  accurate  information  could  gen- 
erally be  obtained  for  them.  No  effort,  however,  was  made  to  secure 
statements  from  the  best  farmers  only,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  the 
results  of  a  number  of  rather  indifferent  farmers  are  included  in  the 
table.  It  is  believed  that  these  figures  show  in  general  what  fairly 
good  farmers  have  done. 

In  arriving  at  profits  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  every  item 
of  actual  expense  has  been  considered.  Nothing,  however,  has  been 
allowed  for  depreciation  of  equipment  or  rental  value  of  land,  nor 
has  anything  been  allowed  for  superintendence  by  the  farmer.  On 
the  other  hand,  where  the  farmer  or  any  member  of  his  family  did 
any  part  of  the  work  he  was  allowed  the  customary  rate  of  hire  for 
men  with  teams,  which  would  include  repairs  of  tools.  It  may  be 
noted  that  if  beets  were  not  grown  some  members  of  the  family, 
particularly  children,  would  earn  nothing  at  all.  The  profits  shown 
by  these  farms,  therefore,' is  what  is  left  after  a  fair  allowance  has 
been  made  for  the  work  of  the  farmer  and  the  members  of  his  family 
and  also  for  the  hire  of  his  teams. 

For  reasons  already  stated  nothing  has  been  allowed  for  the  value 
of  tops  or  pulp.  If  this  had  been  done  many  of  these  farms  would 
show  considerably  larger  profits.  It  is  probable  that  in  most  cases 
the  tops  are  worth  enough  to  more  than  pay  the  taxes  on  the  land. 
It  is  known  that  in  some  cases  they  would  much  more  than  do  this. 

Relation  of  profits  to  yifxd.— The  importance  of  a  large  yield  is 
brought  out  in  the  table  with  striking  emphasis.  As  a  rule  a  yield 
of  less  than  from  7  to  10  tons  per  acre  shows  a  small  profit  and  12 
tons  or  above  show  good  net  returns.  There  are  some  exceptions 
but  not  enough  to  disprove  the  rule.  The  cost  of  growing  an  acre  of 
beets,  except  the  expense  of  harvesting,  does  not  differ  materially  in  a 
given  locality,  whether  the  yield  is  10  tons  or  20  tons.  It  is  appa- 
rent, therefore,  that  every  ton  above  a  yield  necessary  to  meet  ex- 
penses is  nearly  all  profit.  For  example  farm  No.  142  in  the  north- 
ern Wisconsin  district  showed  an  average  profit  of  only  $2.36  an 
acre.  It  cost  this  farmer  $40  to  grow  about  8J  tons  of  beets.  He 
received  an  average  price  of  $5  per  ton.  If  his'  yield  had  been  12^ 
tons  per  acre  he  would  have  received  as  additional  profit  the  value 
of  4  tons  less  the  expense  of  hauling,  which  was  about  60  cents  per 


;» 


V 


/•, 


/ 


ton.  Therefore  his  net  profits  with  12^  tons  would  have  been  about 
$20  per  acre  instead  of  $2.36. 

A  comparison  of  the  yield  per  acre  with  the  expense  per  ton 
clearly  reveals  the  importance  of  a  high  yield.  In  many  cases  of  low 
yield  shown  in  the  table  the  farmer  received  barely  enough  to  meet 
liis  expenses.  This  was  rarely  ever  the  case  where  the  yield  was 
high.  In  Kansas  where  the  yield  of  the  4  farms  involved  was 
uniformly  low  the  net  profits  per  acre  were  correspondingly  low,  and 
in  northern  Colorado  where  the  yield  was  generally  high  the  profits 
were  correspondingly  high. 

Average  results  by  districts. — The  average  results  of  a  district 
is  a  better  standard  by  which  to  measure  profits  than  are  the  results 
of  any  single  farm.  A  summary  by  the  districts  represented  in 
Table  12  is  shown  in  Table  13  below : 


Table  13.— AVERAGE  COSTS  AND  PROFITS,  BY  DISTRICTS, 

1912,  AND  1913. 

FOR  THE  3  YEARS  1911, 

District. 

Acres. 

Yield  per 

acre 

(tons). 

Expense 
per  acre. 

Expense 
per  ton. 

Profit  per 
per  acre. 

Profit  per 
per  ton. 

Ohio-Indiana 

14.79 
17.90 

11.98 

7.18 

7.84 

48.70 

10.02 

41.38 

37.19 
29.85 
34.22 
26.57 
30.37 

22.58 
11. 18 

134. 33 
459.20 
110.41 

11.85 
10.92 

11.83 
14.15 
12.56 
11.92 
12.39 
7.52 

14.77 
13.12 
14.99 
12.90 
15.30 

16.73 

15.86 

15.50 
11.. 34 
13.48 

$37. 70 
41.15 

39.77 
42.72 
40.77 
34.71 
34.12 
30.20 

46.29 
40.11 
51.45 
43.56 
54.45 

42.04 
52.43 

36.79 
34.78 
39.69 

$3.18 
3.77 

3.36 
3.02 
3.25 
2.91 
2.75 
4.02 

3.13 
3.06 
3.43 
3.38 
3.56 

2.51 
3.30 

2.37 
3.07 
2.94 

$23.59 
17.80 

23.83 
33.68 
22.84 
25.12 
27.84 
8.20 

34.48 
37.46 
27.14 
36.03 
22.06 

37.54 
25.50 

44.95 
38.97 
38.34 

$1.99 

Michigan,  lower  oeninsula 

1.63 

Wisconsin: 

Northern  district 

2.02 

Southern  district 

2.38 

Minnesota 

1.82 

Iowa 

2.11 

Nebraska 

2.25 

Kansas 

1.09 

Colorado:                           « 

Northern  district 

2.33 

Southern  district 

2.86 

Grand  Junction  district 

1.81 

Montana 

2.79 

Idaho 

1.44 

Utah: 

Northern  district 

2.24 

Central  district 

1.61 

California; 

Snreckels  district 

2.90 

Oxnard  district 

3.44 

Los  Angeles  district  

2.84 

The  return  per  acre  is  a  better  test  of  profitableness  than  the  net 
return  per  ton.  By  this  test  it  would  appear  that  beet  growing  is 
most  profitable  in  California,  though  Utah  has  the  higher  yield.  By 
reference  to  the  tables  it  Avill  be  noticed  that  the  expense  per  acre  in 
Utah  is  considerably  greater  than  in  California.  This  is  mainh^  due 
to  considerable  cost  for  fertilizing  materials  in  the  former  State.    It 


58 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


should  be  noted  also  that  the  price  per  ton  paid  the  farmer  in  Utah 
is  lower  than  in  California.  Among  the  most  important  beet-growing 
States  Michigan  has  the  lowest  yield  and  the  smallest  net  return  per 
acre.  This  State  has  comparatively  high  costs  due  to  the  high  cost 
of  fertilizer.  The  average  net  returns  do  not  fall  below  $22  per  acre 
in  any  district  except  Kansas  and  the  lower  peninsula  of  Michigan. 
Whether  or  not  the  profits  in  beet  growing  are  sufficient  to  encourage 
cultivation  depends  in  a  measure  upon  how  they  compare  with  those 
that  can  be  realized  from  growing  other  crops. 

Section  10.  Profits  from  beets  compared  with  profits  from  other  crops. 

While  the  absolute  profits  from  growing  beets  may  be  high,  this 
does  not  of  itself  indicate  that  they  are  the  best  crops  to  grow,  because 
some  other  crops  may  yield  better  returns.  Of  course  there  must 
always  be  taken  into  consideration  the  quantity  of  ptoduct  thut  can 
be  marketed  at  a  profit.  Thus  an  acre  of  cabbage  may  yield  twice  as 
great  a  return  as  an  acre  of  beets,  but  if  upon  planting  as  many  acres 
in  cabbage  as  he  does  in  beets  the  farmer  finds  that  he  has  oversup- 
plied  the  market  his  profit  may  disappear. 

There  are  no  definite  figures  showing  the  profits  in  crops  generally 
to  indicate  precisely  how  the  profits  from  beet  growing  compare  with 
profits  from  other  crops.  The  average  annual  gross  returns  and  the 
average  annual  profit  per  acre  of  beets  in  the  various  districts  hereto- 
fore discussed  are  shown  in  the  statement  below.  These  are  averages 
for  three  years  and  are  summarized  in  round  figures  as  follows : 


Ohio-Indiana 

Michigan,  lower  peninsula 

Wisconsin: 

Northern  district 

Southern  district 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Nebraska 

Kansas 

Colorado: 

Northern  district 

Southern  district 

Grand  Junction  district... 


Average 

annual 

gross 

returns 

per  acre. 

Average 
annual 

net 
profits 

per  acre. 

$81.00 

$23.00 

59.00 

17.00 

63.00 

23.00 

76.00 

33.00 

63.00 

22.00 

59.00 

25.00 

61.00 

27.00 

38.00 

8.00 

80.00 

34.00 

77.00 

37.00 

78.00 

27.00 

Montana 

Idaho 

Utah: 

Northern  district . . . 

Central  district 

California: 

Spreckels  district . . . 

Oxnard  district 

Los  Angeles  district 


Average 

annual 

gross 

returns 

per  acre. 


$79.00 
76.00 

79.00 
77.00 

81.00 
73.00 
78.00 


Average 
annual 

net 
profits 

per  acre. 


$36.00 
22.00 

37.00 
25.00 

45.00 
39.00 
38.00 


Assuming  that  wheat  is  ordinarily  worth  $1  per  bushel  delivered  at 
the  railroad  station,  the  lowest  yield  in  any  of  the  districts  in  question 
that  would  give  a  gross  return  equivalent  to  the  gross  return  on  beets 


r  . 


r 


ti 


i  " 


/ 


't 


i 


BEET  GROWING. 


59 


would  be  38  bushels  per  acre.  While  the  average  cost  of  growing 
an  acre  of  wheat  has  not  been  investigated,  it  is  undoubtedly  very 
much  less  than  the  cost  of  growing  an  acre  of  beets.  A  comparison 
of  Avheat  with  beets  upon  the  basis  of  net  profits  on  beets  would  indi- 
cate that,  with  the  exception  of  Kansas,  the  farms  in  these  districts 
would  have  to  show  from  17  to  45  bushels  of  wheat  per  acre  above 
the  quantity,  needed  to  pay  all  expenses  before  the  results  would 
be  equal  to  the  results  from  beets.  Thus  the  beet  farmers  in 
Nebraska,  after  paying  in  wheat  at  $1  per  bushed  for  all  expenses 
incident  to  growing,  harvesting,  and  marketing  an  acre  of  wheat, 
should  have  27  bushels  left  in  order  to  equal  the  results  from  beets. 
On  the  same  basis  those  in  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  the  northern  district  of 
Wisconsin  should  have  23  bushels,  those  in  northern  Colorado  34 
bushels,  those  in  Montana  36,  those  in  Utah  from  25  to  37,  and  those 
in  California  from  38  to  45.  It  is  certain  that  such  results  in  wheat 
could  not  be  realized.  Corn,  on  the  basis  of  50  cents  a  bushel,  would 
require  twice  the  quantity  of  surplus  bushels  as  in  the  case  of  wheat. 

In  some  of  the  States,  particularly  in  the  West,  alfalfa  is  a  very 
important  crop  and  is  considered  profitable.  On  the  basis  of  $10 
per  ton  net  the  beet  growers  in  those  States  would  require  a  crop 
that  would  pay  all  expenses  and  leave  from  2  to  4  tons  per  acre 
remaining  as  profit.  Similar  comparisons  might  be  made  with  other 
staple  crops. 

It  is  not  probable  that  any  important  standard  crop  would  vear^ 
after  year  yield  better  net  returns  per  acre  than  beets.    Many  farmers  3 
insist,  however,  that  they  are  entitled  to  a  better  return  on  beets 
than  on  most  other  crops.    There  is  some  reason  for  this  contention 
because  of  the  care  and  diligence  necessary  to  cultivate  beets  as  com- 
pared with  general  field  crops  and  the  unusually  large  outlay  of  cash 
for  labor.    The  ordinary  farmer  can  not  care  for  as  many  acres  of 
beets  as  he  can  of  general  field  crops.    It  is  probable  that  a  givenl 
number  of  laborers  can  plant,  cultivate,  and  harvest  three  times  as' 
many  acres  of  corn  as  of  beets  and  from  five  to  six  times  as  manv  acres 
of  such  small  grains  as  wheat.    Thus  the  smaller  return  per  acre  for 
these  crops  might  be  as  profitable  to  the  farmer  who  owns  a  large 
or  fairly  large  farm  as  the  larger  returns  per  acre  from  the  much 
smaller  acreage  of  beets.    This  is  an  important  factor  to  take  into 
account  when  considering  the  profit  on  beets.    On  the  other  handT! 
it  should  be  lioted  that  the  beet  groweri  sells  his  crop  at  a  fixed, 
price  before  it  is  planted.    He  is  thus  assured  that  if  he  has  a  good 
crop  he  will  receive  a  definite  return.    In  other  words,  he  assumes  nol 
risk  as  to  conditions  in  the  market.    This  is  a  very  important  advan-J 
tage  and  is  an  offset  to  some  of  the  disadvantages  noted. 

An  important  consideration  in  this  connection  is  the  peculiar 
adaptation  of  beets  to  the  conditions  existing  in  certain  districts. 


^^  - 


60 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES. 


iy 


Some  beet  regions  of  the  West  are  long  distances  from  markets  for 
other  crops.  Grain  and  hay,  for  example,  are  so  bulky  that  the 
freight  rates  do  not  permit  their  reaching  profitable  markets.  BeetSy 
on  the  other  hand,  can  be  sold  near  by,  with  a  consequent  low 
carrying  charge.  Furthermore,  practically  all  the  lands  in  the  beet- 
growing  sections  of  the  West  must  be  irrigated.  When  this  is  prop- 
erly done  it  is  usually  quite  expensive.  This  makes  it  desirable  to 
grow  crops  that  yield  large  net  returns  per  acre.  In  many  sections 
beets  meet  this  requirement,  perhaps,  more  satisfactorily  than  any 
other  crop. 

After  taking  into  account  all  of  the  above  considerations  it  does- 
not  seem  probable  that  intelligent  beet  growers  can  reasonably  hope 
for  more  satisfactory  returns  from  other  crops  than  from  beets.  It 
is  evident  that  this  feeling  prevails  to  a  wide  extent  among  those 
farmers  who  have  engaged  in  this  branch  of  farming.  There  are 
some  who  have  abandoned  this  crop  for  various  reasons,  in  part,  no 
doubt,  because  of  the  exacting  nature  of  the  crop,  and  also  because  of 
a  lack  of  water  and  difficulties  in  securing  labor.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  beet  growers  desire  to  continue 
and  sometimes  express  deep  concern  over  the  possibility  of  the 
closing  of  factories.  It  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  farmers 
would  manifest  such  keen  interest  in  the  beet-sugar  industry  if  they 
did  not  find  it  profitable.  Their  protest  against  any  reduction  in 
the  price  of  beets  is  natural,  but  taken  alone  affords  no  indication 
that  this  branch  of  farming  has  not  been  profitable. 


r 


Y 


>        *•• 


/ 


* 


'Y 


i 


CHAPTER  III. 
COST  OF  PEODUCING  BEET  SUGAR. 

Section  1.  Introduction. 

The  cost  tables  shown  in  this  report  cover  the  average  results  of 
the  five  campaigns  or  seasons  beginning  with  the  year  1909-10  and 
ending  with  the  year  1913-14.  During  this  time  78  different  fac- 
tories made  sugar,  but  not  all  of  them  were  operated  in  any  one  year. 
Three  of  these  factories  were  moved  during  this  period,  so  sugar 
was  made  in  81  different  places.  The  greatest  number  producing 
sugar  in  any  campaign  during  the  period  was  73  in  1912-13.  There 
were  some  idle  factories  and  some  new  ones  were  built  durinor  the 
period  covered.  Cost  statements  were  secured  for  76  different  es- 
tablishments. The  greatest  number  covered  for  any  one  year  was 
73,  for  1912-13.  On  account  of  losses  on  beets  due  to  weather  con- 
ditions the  data  for  one  factory  show  such  abnormal  results  that 
they  are  not  included  in  any  of  the  cost  tables. 

In  this  investigation  access  was  had  to  all  the  records  and  books 
of  account  of  all  the  active  factories  in  the  United  States  except  one 
unimportant  concern.  The  data  were  taken  in  such  detail  as  to  show 
separately  each  important  item  of  cost.  The  accounts  of  all  the  com- 
panies were  not  kept  in  precisely  the  same  form,  but  there  was  gen- 
erally little  difficulty  in  making  such  adjustments  as  to  place  them 
all  on  an  exactly  comparable  basis.  In  order  to  insure  absolute 
accuracy  the  cost  statements  were  in  every  case  made  up  from  the 
books  of  the  companies  and  checked  with  their  balance  sheets,  profit 
and  loss  accounts,  and  income  statements. 

Costs  cover  only  the  sugar  manufacturing  business. — Several 
beet-sugar  companies  are  also  engaged  in  other  business  than  manu- 
facturing sugar,  such  as  farming  and  cattle  feeding.  Some  of  them 
own  or  control  irrigation  projects  and  other  outside  interests.  In  all 
such  cases  these  outside  operations  have  been  separated  from  the 
sugar  business  and  only  the  latter  is  included  in  the  cost  tables. 
Likewise  the  cost  of  marketing  sugar  has  been  kept  distinct  from 
manufacturing  costs  except  in  two  unimportant  particulars.  First, 
the  proportion  of  general  administrative  expense  properly  chargeable 
to  selling  could  not  be  separated  from  the  total  administrative  ex- 
pense with  any  degree  of  accuracy.  For  this  reason  all  of  this  ex- 
pense has  been  charged  into  the  cost  of  manufacture.    The  amount 

61 


li- 


ri^' 


62 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 


of  this  item  chargeable  to  selling  is  so  small  per  100  pounds  of  sugar 
produced  as  not  appreciably  to  affect  the  total  cost.  Second,  amounts 
paid  for  insurance  on  sugar  in  warehouses  at  the  point  of  manufac- 
ture could  not  be  separated  from  insurance  on  plant  and  it  has  been 
charged  in  the  cost  of  production.  Insurance  on  sugar  in  transit  or 
in  storage  at  distribution  points  away  from  the  place  of  production 
has  been  charged  to  selling  expense. 

In  analyzing  certain  miscellaneous  expenses  it  was  sought  to  elimi- 
nate every  item  not  properly  chargeable  to  sugar.  In  a  few  instances 
there  was  some  doubt  as  to  certain  charges.  For  example,  there  were 
sometimes  small  miscellaneous  gains  and  losses  that  could  not  be 
identified.  These  were  included  in  the  cost  statements,  but  the 
amounts  involved  were  always  extremely  small  and  the  average  costs 
are  not  materially  affected  thereby. 

Bases  of  cost  computations. — The  cost  of  production  is  shown 
on  two  bases.  In  one  case  the  unit  is  100  pounds  of  sugar,  and  in 
the  other  case  the  unit  is  a  ton  of  beets.  Practicallv  all  the  discussion 
of  the  cost  of  producing  sugar  is  based  upon  the  sugar  produced. 
For  this  reason  the  tables  computed  upon  this  basis  are  much  more 
detailed  and  elaborate  than  those  based  upon  the  tonnage  of  b^ets 
worked.  The  computations  on  the  latter  basis,  however,  are  of  con- 
siderable interest  and  value,  particularly  in  connection  with  any 
study  of  the  efficiency  of  plants. 

The  tables  based  upon  the  cost  of  100  pounds  of  sugar  show 
the  details  for  the  entire  period  for  all  factories  operating  not  less 
than  3  years  during  the  period  1909-10  to  1913-14.  They  also 
show  the  cost  by  States  for  the  5  years  and  a  summary  for  groups 
of  factories  arranged  according  to  a  certain  range  of  cost.  The 
average  cost  of  working  a  ton  of  beets  is  shown  for  the  5-year  period. 
Identity  of  factory  concealed.— The  identity  of  no  factory  is 
disclosed  in  any  of  the  cost  tables.  Each  factory  is  given  a  number 
and  this  number  is  different  from  the  same  factory  in  different 
tables.  It  is  thus  impossible  from  these  tables  for  one  manufacturer 
to  ascertain  the  costs  of  another.  In  many  cases  beet  sugar  manu- 
facturers have  furnished  their  costs  in  considerable  detail  to  various 
committees  of  Congress  and  such  companies  doubtless  would  not 
object  to  identifying  their  figures.  Others,  however,  who  have  not 
thus  freely  disclosed  their  costs  might  reasonably  object  to  having 
their  factories  identified.  Since  no  useful  purpose  would  be  served 
by  revealing  the  costs  of  individual  factories  or  companies,  they  are 
not  disclosed  in  this  report. 

Section  2.  Proportion  of  total  production  covered  by  cost  tables. 

The  total  production  of  beet  sugar  in  the  United  States  during  the 
5  years  covered  by  the  cost  tables  in  this  report  was  3,020,800  short 


— »^i^i>. 


/ 


Y 


^ 


/ 


/ 


i 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET  SUGAR. 


63 


tons.  Of  this  2,904,626  tons,  or  more  than  96  per  cent  of  it,  are  cov- 
ered by  the  principal  table,  which  shows  the  average  cost  of  produc- 
tion for  5  years  by  factories.  The  table  showing  the  cost  by  States 
covers  2,981,112  tons,  or  nearly  99  per  cent  of  the  total  quantity  pro- 
duced during  the  5-year  period.  The  table  by  States  includes  more 
«ugar  than  the  one  by  factories,  because  some  factories  operating  less 
than  3  years  were  excluded  from  the  latter  to  avoid  disclosing  their 
identity.  The  table  by  factories  includes  the  operations  of  64  fac- 
tories, while  that  for  States  includes  the  operations  of  75. 

Section  3.  Details  of  elements  of  cost. 

The  books  of  most  of  the  companies  made  it  necessary  to  make  two 
general  groups  of  items  for  the  cost  statement.  The  first  group  in- 
cludes the  cost  of  beets  and  the  cost  of  factory  operation.  The  second 
^roup  includes  the  charges  for  general  administrative  expense,  taxes, 
interest,  rentals,  results  from  farming  in  those  cases  where  farms 
ivere  operated,  and  a  number  of  miscellaneous  gains  and  losses.  A 
statement  of  the  form  in  which  these  data  were  obtained  is  shown 
below : 

Group  1. 


1.  Procuring  and  supervising  beet 
acreage. 

"2.  Purchased  beets  and  company- 
grown  beets. 

3.  Freight  paid  on  beets. 

4.  Other  expenses,  handling  and  re- 

ceiving beets. 

5.  Col^e. 
«.  Coal. 

7.  Fuel  oil. 

8.  Lime  rock  and  burnt  lime. 

9.  Sugar  bags,  barrels,  and  twine. 
10.  Filter  bags  and  cloths. 


11.  Oil,  waste,  etc. 

12.  Operating  labor.  < 

13.  Factory    salaries,    officers,    clerks, 

storemen,  and  watchmen. 

14.  Repairs  and  maintenance. 

15.  Insurance. 

16.  General  and  miscellaneous  factory 

expense. 

17.  Stock  in  process  from  preceding 

year. 

18.  Stock  in  process  at  end  of  year. 

19.  Pulp  produced. 

20.  Molasses  sold. 


Group  2. 


1.  General  administration  expense. 

2.  Taxes. 

S.  Miscellaneous  gains  and  losses. 

4.  Depreciation. 


5.  Interest. 

6.  Rentals. 

7.  Farming  and  land  operations. 


All  the  items  in  group  1,  from  1  to  17,  inclusive,  are  debit  items  in 
the  cost  account.  Items  18, 19,  and  20  are  credit  items,  and  their  sum 
is  deducted  from  the  total  of  the  other  items.  Thus  the  stock  in  proc- 
ess at  the  end  of  the  year  was  credited  because  it  appeared  in  the  next 
year's  operations.  The  pulp  and  molasses  produced  and  sold  were 
credited  to  the  sugar  account  and  thus  the  cost  was  reduced  to  that 
extent.    The  items  in  this  group  make  up  the  net  manufacturing  cost. 


•     r 


•_<_ 


64 


THE   BEET   SUGAR   INDUSTRY   IN   THE   UNITED   STATES. 


Some  of  the  items  in  group  2  are  not  properly  chargeable  to  the 
sugar  account.  General  administrative  expense,  taxes  on  the  beet- 
sugar  plant  and  equipment  and  depreciation  are  properly  chargeable 
to  cost.  Interest  was  not  included  in  the  cost  tables  for  reasons  stated 
elsewhere  (see  p.  65).  Miscellaneous  gains  and  losses  when  pertain- 
ing to  sugar  manufactures  were  credited  or  charged  to  the  cost  ac- 
count, as  the  case  may  be,  but  such  it^ms  if  arising  from  transactions 
that  did  not  pertain  to  the  manufacture  of  sugar  were  disregarded. 
For  instance,  any  gain  or  loss  on  account  of  the  feeding  of  cattle  or 
the  operation  of  a  farm  was  not  charged  to  the  cost  of  sugar.  Rentals 
refer  to  rent  paid  for  offices  and  have  been  included  in  cost. 

The  explanation  of  variations  in  the  cost  of  some  items,  such  as 
insurance  and  taxes  and  office  expenses,  are  generally  obvious. 
Speaking  broadly  these  expenses  are  practically  fixed,  and  if  a  fac- 
tory for  any  reason  has  a  small  production  as  compared  with  its  ca- 
pacity they  are  of  course  unduly  high  per  unit  of  production.  On 
the  other  hand,  variations  in  the  cost  of  fuel,  supplies,  and  labor  can 
not  be  so  accounted  for. 

Details  of  certain  cost  ite3is.— A  number  of  the  separate  cost 
charges  are  made  up  from  numerous  small  items.  The  details  of  some 
of  the  charges  in  group  1  above  are  here  shown. 

The  charge  in  item  1  for  beet  acreage  consists  of  salary  and  expense 
of  superintendent  and  automobile  expense. 

Other  expense  for  beets  which  is  covered  by  item  4  includes  11  sep- 
arate charges  as  follows : 

Travel  iniET     expenses      of 


Receiving    labor    in    beet 

sheds. 
Receiving      material      in 

beet  sheds. 
Unloading  beets. 
Maintenance  of  receiving 

stations. 
Piping  or  siloing  beets. 
Depreciation     (beet 

dumps). 


expenses 
supervision. 

Beet    implements     (ex- 
pense or  earnings). 

Agricultural  stable. 

Transportation    of   labor- 
ers. 

Procuring  of  laborers. 


The  charge  for  oil,  waste,  etc.,  item  11,  includes  the  following  16 
separate  items: 


Sulphur. 
Knives,  files. 
Hardware. 

Pipe,  A-alves,  and  fittings. 
Lubricants  and  waste. 
Rubber   goods   and   pack- 
ing. 
Factory  chemicals. 
Laboratory  supplies. 
Electrical  supplies. 


Water  and  drainage. 
Belting  and  laces. 
Machinery      parts      and 

castings. 
Rubber   boots    and   oiled 

suits. 
Centrifugal  supplies. 
Tubes. 
Kieselguhr. 


'  )' 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET  SUGAR. 


65 


Y 


■  t 


A 


/ 


t 


i 


Factory  salaries  of  officers,  etc.,  included  in  item  13,  embrace  sal- 
aries of  managers,  superintendents,  main  office,  and  superintendents' 
clerks,  and  watchman  and  storeroom  employees. 

Item  16,  which  covers  general  and  miscellaneous  factory  expense, 
includes  the  following: 


Telegrams  and  telei^hones. 

Main  office  supplies. 

Managers'  traveling  ex- 
penses. 

Superintendent's  office  ex- 
penses. 


Superintendent's  travel- 
ing expenses. 

Special  supervision  ex- 
penses. 

Sr)ecial  engineering  ex- 
penses. 

Stable. 


Item  12,  which  covers  operating  labor,  includes  expenditures  under 
18  heads,  as  follows: 


Supervision. 
Main  house. 
Boiler  house. 
StelTens  house. 
Limekilns. 
Laboratory. 
Sugar  warehouse. 


Machine  shop. 
Water  drainage. 
Yards. 

Securing  labor. 
B<aius. 
Miscellaneous. 


Interest  excluded  from  cost. — Interest  is  charged  for  the  use 
of  money  and  obviously  can  form  no  part  of  the  cost  of  production. 
Money  borrowed  will  buy  as  much  material  or  hire  as  much  labor  as 
money  owned.  Interest  on  borrowed  money,  therefore,  has  no  effect 
upon  the  cost  of  production.  It  does  have,  however,  a  material  effect 
upon  the  financial  results  of  a  business,  and  this  is  taken  into  account 
in  the  discussion  of  profits  on  investment. 

Section  4.  Depreciation. 

None  of  the  beet-sugar  companies  charged  any  depreciation  on 
plant  and  factory  equipment  in  their  cost  accounts,  but  some  of 
them  deducted  depreciation  from  their  earnings. ,  Such  deductions, 
however,  were  not  based  on  any  consistent  plan.  Some  years  this 
charge  was  very  much  more  than  in  others,  and  in  some  3'ears  there 
was  no  charge  at  all.  If  the  business  was  prosperous,  the  charge  for 
depreciation  was  very  high,  and  when  business  was  poor  and  profits 
not  large,  the  depreciation  charge  was  small  if  made  at  all.  Very 
few,  if  any,  of  the  companies  have  taken  account  of  depreciation 
for  as  many  as  five  consecutive  years.  For  these  reasons,  the  actual 
charges  for  depreciation  made  by  the  companies  have  been  disre- 
garded, and  instead  a  reasonable  allowance  has  been  made  and 
included  in  the  cost  of  manufacture.  It  is  obvious  that  some  allow- 
ance should  be  made  for  depreciation.     It  is  impossible  indefinitely 


^^ 


66 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTEY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


to  maintain  a  beet-sugar  factory  in  a  high  state  of  efficiency  by  ordi- 
nary repairs.  ,  -^    -^      "' 

foi"  ^^t  beet-sugar  industry,  the  depreciable  property  consists  of 
factory  buildings  and  equipment,  beet  sheds,  office  furniture  and  fe 
ures,  and  beet  stations.    In  this  di«,ussion  beet  sheds  are  condde  Jd 

tLinV    '^'^''''''y  ''""<ii"g-    Many  of  the  companies  haJe 
ncluded  depreciation  on  stations  and  office  furniture  and  fixtures  in 

lesnem  '"''""?«*»^«'/n'i  therefore  in  the  computations  with 
respect  to  depreciation  made  by  the  Commission  those  comparatively 
insignificant  items  have  not  been  considered  parativeiy 

thJ^^TT!-  •*"P''^'^'**'°°  <i«Pends  upon  a  number  of  conditions,  and 
these  conditions  vary  in  different  plants.     All  property  does  not 

thaTbut  '''  T'  ''''■  '^'"''^''^  deteriorates  more  "piSly 
than  buildings,  and  some  machines  more  rapidly  than  others   and 

of  rn\r;oS'""^  "^  "^"  '"^^^^^  ^'^^^  °*^-^'  eitsr^ut 

used  in    hir.     ?  "!''  ^^  "'"'"^  "*  *^'  "^^^'^'^'^  "f  the  materials 
.rccou^tof  dff.  "r'  "*"'.  ""  ''^*^^^"  '"^^'•^"t  localities,  on 

account  of  differences  m  climatic  conditions.  The  life  of  a  bJiildin^ 
or  machine  depends  not  only  upon  the  factors  just  mentLned  buf 
also  upon  the  extent  to  which  the  property  is  kept  up  by  reZirs     If 

ZTZZml:T7'''  1  ""^^  ^-^^  concLeUsSTame 
worfe,  they  will  endure  for  a  long  time  with  comparativelv  slight 

Shorter  than  that  of  buildings.    Some  machines,  however  if  keot  in 
repair  will  give  efficient  service  for  many  years.    On  the  ir  hand 
there  are  some  machines  whose  life  is  comparativ^  Irf  uSer  the 
most  favorable  circumstances.    The  actual  denrpm.t;  J  7      T 
the  life  of  the  property.  depreciation  depends  upon 

The  rate  of  depreciation  for  cost-accounting  purposes  must  hp 
fixed  in  advance  according  to  previous  experieL^nTtherX  t 
necessarily  somewhat  theoretical  and  arbitrary.  The  method  em 
ployed  m  arriving  at  the  charge  for  depreciation  used  in  thTs  rep^ 
IS  here  described  m  detail.  It  is  believed  that  this  method  is  Sf 
but  It  IS  no  claimed  to  be  absolutely  accurate.  It  shouldTnoted  n 
this  connection  that  in  the  cost  accounts  of  the  beet-sugar  companies 
hberal  charges  are  made  for  maintenance  and  repairs,  and  thfsfoct 
tends  to  support  the  conclusion  that  the  allowances  for  depJecTatfoa 
made  by  the  Commission  are  liberal  aepreciation 

Method  of  arriving  at  a  depreciation  CHARGE.-In  order  to  deter 
mine  a  proper  charge  for  depreciation,  the  first  step  is  to  determhi; 
the  actual  mvestment  in  depreciable  property:  the  second  stenT?! 
determine  a  proper  rate  of  depreciation"^  It  ^as  poSSe  to  a^er 
tam  the  actual  cost  of  investment  in  the  buildings  aVrquipLnTof 


r 


•    * 


i 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET  SUGAR. 


67 


a  factory  with  accuracy  in  many  cases,  and  with  approximate 
accuracy  in  others.  A  proper  rate  of  depreciation  is  estimated  on 
the  basis  of  the  anticipated  life  of  the  depreciable  property.  The 
estimates  adopted  were  based  upon  certain  concrete  facts  coupled 
with  the  judgment  of  men  familiar  with  the  business. 

Cost  of  plant  investment. — The  factory  buildings  and  equipment^ 
T         including  beet  sheds  and  other  outbuildings  of  the  factory,  have  been 
considered  in  connection  with  plant  investment.    The  cost  of  invest- 
•  ment  in  buildings  and  machinery  and  other  factory  equipment  was 

ascertained  by  an  analysis  of  the  property  account  in  connection 
with  construction  accounts  wherever  the  latter  were  available.  When 
construction  accounts  were  not  available  there  was  usually  a  record 
Y  of  some  transaction  in  connection  with  the  capitalization  of  the  com- 
pany that  shed  some  light  on  the  cost  of  property.  The  books 
always  showed  the  cost  of  additions  to  buildings  and  equipment,  and 
if  any  reductions  had  been  made  for  depreciation  they  were  also 
shown  in  the  books.  The  approximate  cost  of  the  buildings  and 
equipment  for  a  beet-sugar  factory  of  a  given  capacity  is  fairly  well 
established.  This  figure  also  assisted  in  determining  the  real  value 
or  cost  of  a  plant  where  definite  information  was  not  available. 
With  these  various  facts  known  it  was  usually  possible  to  make  such 
'<.  adjustments  of  accounts  as  to  show  practically  accurate  cost  of 
investment  in  plant  and  other  property. 

The  methods  will  be  better  understood  by  illustrative  examples. 
If,  for  instance,  the  construction  of  a  plant  shows  a  cost  of,  say, 
$350,000  and  additions  have  cost  $50,000,  the  total  investment  is 
$400,000.    In  a  case  of  this  sort  the  cost  of  investment  is  absolutelv 
accurate.    In  a  case  where  no  construction  account  was  available,  of 
course,  a  different  method  had  to  be  followed.    Suppose  in  another 
case  the  buildings  and  equipment   were   carried  on   the   books   at 
^         $500,000.    The  books  also  showed  that  at  various  times  depreciation 
to  the  amount  of  $60,000  had  been  charged  off.     The  sum  of  these 
two  items,  or  $560,000,  would  indicate  the  actual  cost  of  the  property 
provided  the  actual  cost  of  construction  was  $500,000.     This,^  how- 
ever, was  not  always  the  case.    An  examination  of  all  the  books  of 
account  would  generally  show  the  amount  of  working  capital  and 
any  other  assets  sepa:rately.    If  in  this  case  those  items  amounted  to, 
say,  $140,000,  the  actual  cost  of  all  the  property  of  the  concern  would 
appear  to  be  $700,000,  and  this  amount  was  covered  by  the  issued 
capital  stock  of  the  company.    It  was  found,  however,  that  $100,000 
of  this  stock  was  given  as  a  bonus  or  that  the  stock  was  issued  at 
-(  such  a  price  as  to  make  the  discount  equivalent  to  $100,000.    It  would 

be  apparent,  therefore,  that  the  property  cost  $100,000  less  than  the 
books  showed,  or  in  this  case  $600,000.    This  excess  would  generally 


'  I 


-•-#. 


68 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES. 


be  found  to  be  carried  in  the  book  value  of  buildings  and  equipment, 
which  in  this  case  would  leave  the  actual  cost  of  that  item  to  be 
$460,000.  This  amount  also  included  the  value  of  the  factory  site. 
It  was  assumed  that  an  ordinary  factory  site  consists  of  not  exceed- 
ing 40  acres  and  that  generally  this  land  was  worth  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  $250  per  acre  at  the  time  the  factory  was  built,  thus  fixing 
the  site  value  at  $10,000.  Deducting  this  from  the  $460,000  leaves 
$450,000  as  the  cost  of  the  factory  buildings  and  equipment.  Such 
figures  can  be  checked  by  comparing  them  with  the  cost  of  a  f actorv 
.  based  on  its  rated  capacity.  Suppose  that  this  was  a  400-ton  factory. 
The  cost  of  buildings  and  equipment  varies  from  $800  to  about 
$1,200  per  ton  capacity.  Thus,  $450,000  for  a  400-ton  plant  would 
not  be  considered  excessive.  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  were  a  500-ton 
plant  it  would  show  a  cost  of  $900  per  ton  capacity,  and  this  would 
not  be  considered  too  small. 

It  should  be  stated  that  in  most  cases,  and  particularly  in  the  case 
of  the  more  important  companies,  it  was  not  necessary  to  resort  to 
the  rather  intricate  method  just  described.  There  were  generallv 
found  partial  or  complete  construction  accounts  that  enabled  a 
practically  exact  determination  of  the  cost. 

Bate  of  depreciation.— There  is  a  wide  divergence  of  opinion 
among  beet-sugar  manufacturers  as  to  what  is  a  proper  charge  for 
depreciation.  The  general  manager  of  the  Great  Western  Sugar  Co. 
in  a  letter  filed  with  the  Hardwick  committee  ^  stated  that  the  amount 
of  depreciation  that  should  be  charged  for  each  year  for  the  factories  of 
that  company  would  be  from  28  to  43  cents  per  100  pounds,  and  that 
a  fair  average  for  all  the  Colorado  factories  would  be  35  cents  per 
100  pounds.  On  the  other  hand,  the  American  Beet  Sugar  Co.,  in  its 
annual  report  for  the  year  ending  March  31.  1915,  set  aside  an  ap- 
propriation of  10  cents  per  bag  of  100  pounds  for  depreciation  and 
additions.  Other  estimates  have  been  made  as  to  depreciation,  the 
most  common  rate  suggested  being  5  per  cent  or  6  per  cent  of  the 
value  of  the  property. 

It  was  found  that  approximately  30  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  de- 
preciable property  consisted  of  buildings  and  TO  per  cent  of  machin- 
ery and  other  factory  equipment.  Allowing  a  depreciation  rate  of 
3  per  cent  on  buildings  and  6  per  cent  on  equipment,  an  average  rate 
of  5.1  per  cent  was  arrived  at.  and  5  per  cent  was  adopted  for  com- 
puting the  depreciation  in  the  cost  tables  of  this  report.  It  is  believed 
that  this  rate  is  very  liberal,  and  while  it  is  used  in  this  report  it 
should  not  be  understood  that  the  Commission  sets  it  up  as  a  standard. 

1  Hearings  on   Investigation  of  the  American   Sugar   Refining  Co.  and   Others,   vol.   ?>, 

p.    2o94a 


f> 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET  SUGAR. 


69 


tC. 


i; 


There  was  computed,  in  the  manner  already  explained,  for  each 
company,  and  in  most  cases  for  each  factory  where  a  company  owned 
more  than  one  factory,  the  average  annual  cost  of  investment  for 
•factory  buildings  and  equipment  and  the  depreciation  thereon  for 
each  of  the  five  years.  The  depreciation  for  a  bag  (100  pounds)  of 
sugar  for  each  factory  was  found  by  dividing  the  aggregate  produc- 
tion for  five  years  into  the  aggregate  depreciation  thus  computed. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  amount  of  depreciation  for  a 
given  plant  is  generally  uniform  from  year  to  year  unless  there 
have  been  important  changes  in  the  plant  investment ;  that  is  to  say, 
if  a  plant  costs  $1,000,000,  and  no  important  additions  were  made  and 
5  per  cent  is  a  proper  rate  for  depreciation,  then  the  amount  charged 
against  cost  for  each  year  would  be  $50,000.  The  rate  per  bag  of 
sugar,  however,  would  necessarily  vary  as  the  production  varies. 
Thus,  if  a  factory  produced  twice  as  much  sugar  one  year  as  it  did 
in  another,  the  depreciation  per  bag  would  be  half  as  much  for  the 
year  of  large  production  as  for  the  year  of  small  production.  It 
will  be  seen  by  reference  to  Table  14  (see  p.  72)  that  the  depreciation 
ranged  from  12  cents  to  $1.13  per  100  pounds  of  sugar.  This  varia- 
tion in  the  rate  of  depreciation  per  bag  of  sugar  is  partly  if  not 
mostly  due  to  the  variation  in  the  relation  of  production  to  cost  of 
plant. 

Section  5.  Average  cost  of  production  for  5  years,  by  factories. 

Obviously,  the  average  costs  for  several  years  are  more  representa- 
tive than  the  costs  of  a  single  year.  Such  averages  are  shown  in 
Table  14  (see  p.  72),  which  includes  the  results  of  64  factories,  each  of 
which  operated  at  least  3  years  during  the  5  years  from  1909-10  to 
1913-14,  inclusive.  Of  this  number  53  operated  5  years,  4  operated  4 
years,  and  7  operated  3  years.  The  factories  operating  less  than  3 
years  have  been  excluded  from  the  table.  These  64  factories  pro- 
duced 5,809,253,650  pounds  of  granulated  sugar  during  the  period 
covered.  This  was  more  than  96  per  cent  of  all  the  beet  sugar  pro- 
duced in  the  United  States  during  that  period. 

There  are  some  factors  in  connection  with  the  cost  computations 
that  slightly  affect  their  exactness  and  these  should  be  pointed  out 
before  discussing  the  results  shown.  This  will  be  better  understood 
by  showing  the  cost  per  100  pounds  for  a  factory  in  the  form  of  an 
account.  Factory  No.  30  in  Table  14  will  serve  as  an  illustration. 
87731—17 6 


•4. 


'<i.\i 


70  THE  BEET   SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

^^^^«-  Credits. 

^„  -'^  $2. 3528     Stock  in  process  and  by-prod- 

Lime  rock  and  lime .0436     Miscellaneous  gains""  ^^31 

Sugar  bags  and  barrels .  1210  * 

Other  supplies .0473 

Maintenance  and  repairs .  1726 

Operating  labor .2706 

Administration  and  office  ex- 
pense   1907 

Insurance  and  taxes .0637 

/          Total  cash  expenditures.    3. 3999 
Stock    in    process    from    pre- 
ceding year ,0375 

Gross  cost  not  includ- 
ing depreciation 3.  4374 

Depreciation .1500 

Gross     cost,     including  " 

depreciation 3.5874  Total  eredits_._  1464 

.^et  cost,  including  depreciation,  $3.5874-$0.14e4=$3.44l0. 

Stock  in  process  from  preceding  year  represents  every  item' of 
expense  preceding  it  in  the  statement  except  that  for  s.fgar  bai 
but  ,t  was  an  expense  incurred  during  the  previous  vear.  The 
stock  in  process  at  the  end  of  the  year  which  is  credited 'to  the  cost 
account  likewise  includes  every  item  of  expense  in  the  cost  st2 
men  except  bags,  but  it  was  an  expense  incurred  in  the  vear  beml 
considered.  Thus  a  part  of  the  total  cash  expenditur  of  $3  39! 
nclndes  a  part  of  the  value  of  the  stock  in  process  at  the  end  of   L 

of  The  ^'T'^'"'*''''^  ''"^•"g  «n  a'^count  of  the  difference  in  the  value 
of  the  stocks  in  process  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  of  the  vea 
particularly  m  the  average  operations  for  five  years,  would  be  too 
small  materially  to  affect  the  total  average  cost 

For  convenience   the  net  value  of  by-products  has  been  included 
^Mth  the  value  of  stock  ,n  process  at  the  end  of  the  year.    These  by 
products  are  pulp  and  molasses,  with  occasionally  a  verv  TnvS 

are  the  net  profits  from  these  sources;  all  costs  have  been  deducted 
from  gross  receipts,  hence  there  is  no  complication  as  to  expenditures 
as  m  the  case  of  stock  in  process.  The  miscellaneous  gains  and  loses 
are  practically  always  small  items.  They  usuallv  grol  out  of  tr^ns 
actions  in  beet  seed,  adjustments  of  inventories,  of  supplies  etc" 
AVhere  there  is  a  net  lo.s  from  these  sources,  it  is  of  course  added 
to  the  amount  in  the  column  of  gross  costs.  In  the  example  above 
there  was  a  gain,  and  i  t  was  deducted.  ^ 


7 


»v, 


i 


/ 


{ 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET  SUGAR. 


71 


It  is  thus  seen  that  details  of  some  of  the  elements  entering  into 
an  adjustment  of  costs  are  indeterminate  and  consequently  no  such 
adjustment  can  be  made.  However,  this  does  not  materially  affect 
the  value  of  the  tables.  The  most  important  item  in  the  tables  is  the 
net  factory  cost,  and  that  is  accurate.  The  other  items  would  be 
changed  but  slightly  by  any  adjustment. 

Each  factory  has  been  given  a  number  to  prevent  its  identification. 
The  reason  that  the  serial  numbers  do  not  always  run  consecutively 
is  that  each  factory  was  given  a  number  regardless  of  the  number 
of  years  it  operated,  and  the  omission  of  a  serial  nimiber  is  due  to 
the  omission  of  the  factory  represented.  While  there  are  only  64 
factories  represented  in  Table  14,  the  highest  serial  number  is  74. 
The  net  cost  is  shown  both  excluding-and  including  depreciation. 


\ 


72 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET  SUGAR. 


7a 


> 


»  •* 


Cj    »«    r- 

««   o   o 


§§   »   «5   ^ 

""     OS    CO    »o 


M 


"^    «    •♦    -^    ^        "^    eo    eo    «♦    ^' 


w    «o    •*    ^'   eo 


O  OS  (N  C*l 

^    lO  ®  -^  OS 

SS   2^  CO  o  Si 

o   o  o  o  o 


S   S    *    S    <^ 

w  S  =:  S  ^ 


|S5S2.    22  fS 


O     O 


•^i  =  i?^     f2?§gS2     S"^^- 
--^-H^      .^53c553g5      USISS 


iiS       ^e5Sj§?S       !iSS^«^       «»xr^cM 

iis  iss^lk  ssiii  iiili 


W(Ncocoeo       coc6(Nesieo 


^    _ 
eo  CO  eo 


«  r^  Qo  o  J  2  2  S'  2  2  »-'  «■  »■  ff  -■ 


6366 
4628 

o 

i 

eo 

"  © 

1-4 

00 

i 

t^ 

00 

t-H 

■«»<  »o 

»c 

•^ 

»c 

CO 

If 

CO 

CO 

CO 

00  OS 

CO  CO 

o 

CO 

CO 

^ 

"5 

5 

?J 

s 

5?  -^  s  «  s 

ob  «o  -H  oo  1-1 

tc  e«9  t^  ©  •* 

CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 


«0  CO  «C  lO  tC 

©  ■•t  «^  CO  00 

t-,  ob  »o  sc  OS 

u:  tc  <o  9  1-1 

CO  CO  CO  ^  ^ 


«  15  OS  CO  © 

Stp  T}<  OC  O 

^  1^  t^  CO 

^  <«  1-1  o«  M 

^  CO  *c  CO  CO 


-^  t-»  CO  CO  00 
c»  1-1  CO  es  ^ 


00  OS  P4  © 

rH  R  00  CO 


•^  CO  CO  00  t>- 

^  <-4  cp  •-<  1^ 


/ 


00  CD 

O 


§  2 

-<  CO  X 

l»  •*  o 


'*  »c  •^  ■^  »c 


o  00  ©  o  00 

•^  —4  (P  to  I— I 

S  38  i  S?  S? 

CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 


CO  ^  CO  -H  © 

■^  ■>*  CO  N  io 

(--  OS  00  »C  CO 

CO  ^  CO  •*  c5 

CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 


CO  CO  iC  tC  CO 

g"<f<  r>-  CO  00 

©  CO  TJ<  » 

Tf  ^  CO  1—1  00 

€0  CO  CO  ^  CO 


N  15  OS  CO  o 

SCO  ■»»<  00  © 

^H  ■«»•  OS  © 

r-  CO  to  ©  © 

CO  to  ^  CO  CO 


d  CO  N  ■»*< 

^  CO  to  »o 

OS  CO  1-1  eo 

CO  CO  CO  cO 


f  t>.  CO  ■^  •* 

CO  to  Q  00  o 

f  O  OT  CO  CO 

1— I  1-1  O  1-H  CO 


■^  ■^  •»»'  I^  c» 

00  CO  oo  S  to 
e5i  ^  e<  CM  ^ 


00  CO  00  OS  CO 

§  S  ©  t>.  § 

—4  1— I  CO  1^  1— ' 


©  t>.  -4  OS  © 

to  r-  CM  CO  to 

CO  W"*  00  OS 

CO  0  CO  1^  »-< 


00  i*<  CM 

CO  CO  -H 

CO  to  CO 

©  ©  © 


1-1  o  ©  cp  t>- 
CO  CM  S  <N   ~ 


CM  CO  -H  CO  r^ 

-H  lO  CM  00  to 


isSSS     S88Sg     SSS8i 


OS  CO  l>- 

CO  to  Tf 

-      oc  ©  -^ 

CO    -H  ©  o 


r 


I    I    I 


I 


I    I 


S  CO  TO  06  »o 
I-"  OS  •^  00  t>. 
•Kf    CO    CO    CO    t>. 


©  1-1 


CO      CO      ©      rH       ^H 

■^     ©     ©     to     CO 
1^     1-1     ©     1^     CO 


CO     t^     CO     i-H     OS 
«     to     1-1     1-1     © 

8  2^82 


oc 

CM 

© 


CM     CO 
Q     t^ 

©   © 


OS   ©   o    to   CO 

^  ^  ^  s  s 

CO    ^    »o    »-•    -H 


00    If 


© 


t-i      CO      «^      S      f^ 

^  i  §  is  « 


s 


00 


t>-     to  0  oc  CM 

to    -^  0  1-1  0 

gtO  t-  CM  * 

CO  CO  i>-  CO 


^    ©   CO 


-^  CM 

1-1     •<»<     ©     00  © 

OS      ©     l>-      11  -^ 

to   to   CO    CO  © 


^ 


CM  CM  ©  CM  © 

00  ■*  r^  CM  to 

00  -4  00  oc  ~ 

O  ■>*«  00  CM 


eS 


»o    10    »o    »c 


CO     CD     CO     00     CO 


CO     CO     CO     CO     CO 


CO     CO     CO     ^     ^ 


^     lO     ^     CO     CO 


*■• 


©  00  to  00 

•^  1-1  O  1-1 

-<  ©  t^  CO 

1-«  ©  ©  © 


CM 


to    r- 

©   o 


§ 


CM  CM 

©  OS 

CO  00 

©  © 


-^  to  CO  CM  -H 

•»»«  CD  OS  "*"  00 

CO  ©  5  CO  1-1 

O  1-1  ©  ©  ^4 


-H  t>.  CM  to  CM 

.1  ^H  to  1-1  CO 

"*•  CM  to  to  to 

—4  1-4  O  1-1  © 


gto  •^  00  © 

CO  ©  CO  © 

©    Tf  CO  t^  00 

»H      ^  CO  ©  © 


©  t^  OS  10 

00  1-1  CO  CO 

to  -H  00  CO 

o  ©  ©  © 


8  8  S  S 

"'is 


© 


00  ^H  to  CO  CO 

i>.  to  CO  1— •  tO 

to  •'f  CD  CO  ■* 

©  ©  ©  o  © 


CM  00  to  »H  o 

OS  ■^  ©  O  to 

■^  to  to  CO  t>- 

©  ©  ©  ^  © 


t^  ©  "1  CO  1—1 

©  CO  -^f  CO  CM 

^  -H  OS  tO  CO 

-H  -N  -H  O  0 


CO  a  CO  r- 

{i  CM  lO  OS 

©  -H  65  r>. 

1-1  CM  CM  Tf 


r>  ©  eo  t>.  00 

O  ai  .-I  r^  00 

©  00  -H  ©  Tf 

^  CM  CM  «  « 


r^  CO  00  CO  00 

00  ©  OS  t'.  © 

^H  t-  ?)  to  00 

CM  iH  CM  CM  .-» 


CO  t—  CM  © 

•^  0  CM  CO 

00  N  CO  f 

1-1  CM  CM  CO 


i 


©  t^  O  CM  to 

^  CO  ©  ©  OS 

©  CM  OS  I^  to 

•<«1  to  N  ^H  1-1 


CO    ■^ 


1-1  00  to 

t-     to  to  M< 

t^     1^  00  CM 

^,  CO  CO  to 


§23 

r»    00    t>- 
CM     CM     CM 


© 

CM 

Tf 

to 

Tf 

Tf 

—4 

CM 

SS 

?J 

■*     ©     ©     OC     00 

©    ©    cl    r^    « 

CM     «     CM     CO     C* 


CO     to     ©  to  CO 

CO     CO     1-H  CM  1-1 

"      t-  00  00 

to  CM  CM 


S 


s 


OS  If  CO 

^    ©  I*"  1^ 

to    eg    00  O  X 

^     «     CM  -4  CO 


CD  ©  ©  ©  © 

N  ©  ©  CO  If 

t>-  00  ©  1-1  CO 

1-t  CO  — H  t-4  1I 


O     1— I     1-^     '^     © 
©     -^     CM     oc      ^ 

CO    eo    to    to 


§^ 


•f  X  ©  ©  CM 

©  CO  I^  ©  l^ 

00  ®  -"f  X  1-H 

,-(  ^  1-1  CM  CM 


CO     -^     to     to     X 

1J1       50      ©       "H       »^ 

S  S  !^  S  g^ 


/ 


©  to  r-  X  'f 

■>.  CO  1-1  1^  CM 

2  fc:  2£  S  "5 

o  ©  o  ©  ^ 


CO  to  to  ©  CO 

1^  •^  t^  t^  o 

■«f  I^  10  Tf  Tf 

o  o  ©  ©  o 


1-1    1^    OS    1-1    CO 

1-1     -^     1^     CM     CO 
o    ©    ©    ©    © 


CO  X  -H  to  to 

I-*  ©  ©  to  to 

to  CO  to  to  "!f 

©  c5  o  ©  © 


eo  CO  ©  ©  CM 

©  CM  ©  ©  CO 

•^  O  X  ■^  -"f 

1-t  ^^  ©  ©  c 


1-1     11     00     -H     CM 
I-     CM     I-     OS     1^ 

CO    CO    CO    CO    © 


©    CO    CO    CO    © 

-H     OS     CO     ■^     CM 

C>1       O       -H       1-H       »-( 


eo    CO    CO    I**    © 

■*     lO     CO     CO     to 


-4    CO     ©     CO    I-- 
CM     ^     CO     00     CO 


O     to     1^     X     OS 

CO    -"f    r^    ©    to 

-H       -H      O       -H       -H 


*>     ' 


•    f 


-H 

CO  CM 

X 

_, 

-^ 

10 

C  'O  CO 

i  i 

©  X 

r-  ^ 

X 

1-1 

t>. 

© 

^ 

eo 

X 

rt) 

©  X 

© 

CO 

to  eo 

■Kf 

s 

eo 
»f 

© 
eo 

X  1- 

tO  to 

s 

^ 

S8 

^ 

-M 

s 

to 

?  s 

1- 

eo 

© 

• 

©  0 

© 

• 

© 

©  © 

©  © 

• 

© 

© 

• 

1-1 

rH 

0 

1-1 

©  © 

© 

s 


©    X    r>-    CO 

_      to     -^     CD     00 

CO    to    ©    X    X 

eo    Tf    ^   1-4    CO 

■!•••• 


©  -H  CM  ©  OS 

I-  CO  1^  1^  o 

CO  ©  ©  CO  r» 

1-1  C4  1-t  CM  r-t 


CM 


©    CO    to 

-H      TT      to 
CO     10     CM 


CO  to  t>-  CO    1-1 

I^  I^  CM  to     —I 

©  ©  •*  Tf    .X 

-4  CM  -H  e^  •,-( 


©    -H    »i    CO    X 
eo    CM    i^    i-(    CO 

S  S  S  2  2 


i 


CO  X  ©  X    © 

00  -H  »i  OS    «!f 

l>.  !>.  to  CO 

^  ©  to  X 

CO  CO  CO  CO   eo 


© 

•<f 

Ml 

CM 

to 

CO 

X 

CO 

s 
s 

X 

1 

i 

eo 

-H 
© 

© 
© 

X 
CM 

1-H 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM  CO  ©  ©  to 

CO  iji  3  CO  © 

Tf  CM  X  X  CO 

eo  CO  to  ■^  © 

CM  CM  CM  CM  CM 


©  ■^  ■^  »-i  CO 

©  X  -H  OS  to 

O  ti  to  -H  1^ 

eo  X  •<»<  -H  o 

CM  CM  CM  CM  CM 


S^  ^  ^  ^  s 


O       -H       Tf       to       CO 

CO   eo   CO   eo   co 


t^      X      ©      ©      »H 

CO    CO    CO    ^    ^ 


CM    eo 


•^    to    CO 


X 


O       1-H       r«.1 

to   to  ua 


S 

3 


3 


o. 

I 

n 
to 

8 

o 

c 


9 

3 

"3 

>• 

3 

■<-> 
en 

O 

(h 

o 
t> 

SS 

w^ 

X 

V) 

o 

IH 

o 

s: 


•3 
08 


S3 
o 

3 

09  li 

^   j:   '■^ 
So 

S    S    ® 

08      Q, 

^•S  „ 

3    »i    55 
3    §    § 

s 


o 

Ih 


o 

3 


cc 

O  03 

^^  O 

^    *-  3 

3   *J  "3 

i  g  § 

i-H       .  03 

^  "3  *i 

T  "O  3 

•S  §  >» 


>-.  -J,,, 


•j2i^S!E: 


*^- 


74  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


i 


m 


i 


o 


i 

OQ 


A 

« 
O 

» 

Pi 

> 

i 

t— t 
« 
p 

Si 

SI 
«^ 

o 

OQ 

Q 

a 

o 

Pi 

p 
o 


o 

l-H 

o 

Q 
O 

03 

o 

OQ 

O 


'6 


•S    -0-3 


as 


&0 


■8 


!z  t?  *^  5  9<^ 
-Pi* 


1 

e 
6^ 


1 


^^  pS<  Bifl 


o  c  a  o 


— •  er  a  .• 

§22* 


T3 

fa  Js  2 

3  w  ® 

SO  X 
O  03 

a 


•2  *     w  «^ 


03 


M 

0  o 


9 


O  03 


d  3  es  ft 


OS* 

35 


05 


«3 


«  ji  fl  s 

1—1  •- "  — 


I 


"O    ■*    o 

8  f2  i 

•*    QO   eo 


•c 


^  i-<     O    CO    OS     o> 

j2«eo«co       e6   n   -^   ci   ci 


.i-ieoA        Q0W-4F. 

^^s       ri#\      i»^^       .  ^E       xK       St       ^^ 


CO       O)       00      O       ^4 

eo   CO   eo   «   CO 


•«i«    f5    56    ^ 

CO     CO     CO     CO 


2  ^  ?5  ^  ^     g§  S§  S  S  8     ?5  S  S  g5  2     U:  £2  §§  2 


o«8SS  2SS2S  22^2222;  t;.oo«?a. 

-Hc»5?.o^  SSS5nS  SSSSSSP*  ooe5-«i^ 

-;^o:Sc,  ss§,tg  ^§s5?s  ?5is?s 

cgcococoeo  C4co^(N(N  eoMeoeo<?i  eoeoeo«c 

^ssgs  S2^sf3  S5BSSS  iiui 

^'^'1*1'^  'H^c^eoo  ^St22o  §i?JSco 

o  '*  ••...  .... 

M 

isiis  2|ggg  iiSgs  ii-i2 

ooo§S  0S008  §S8§o  SoS2 

o        *'  .... 

'  I  I  III 

"ipis  l2|ii  ii§ii  giss 

o  •....  .... 


iliiS    iSSii    ggsifs    sssi? 
«ss5^^    ssssss    t^^sis    ^;3§i 

cjeoeoeoco        eoeOTj-'eoc^        ec-^^coeo        eococo«c 

iiili  iiiii  iiiii  iiii 

o  .... 

iiiii  iiiii  iiiii  ifii 

Si        

Isil"^^      ^§5J?iS      !^2fe!i5S      S^28 

2:2S2-2    22sis    s^l§2    isSi 

o  •       .       .  

«» 

SxcJooSc        tS{2^SS        S^Sa^S^        csi    ^    o    00 

^^^Si      2§|o|      i|g|§      S|ig 

s     

s  S5  s  2  ^  2  2S  2  ::  s  sis^s  sill 
s       

s§§§§  §ii§i  ii^sl  ligi 
^     

2S2|i   §§||S  §§^§2  |E|.| 

S^ 

§§§§s    si!58;:    isifeg    sill 

o  *'         .... 


CO 

8 


CO    to 
en    'T 


(N     (N 


•*        CO    -^    o    OS   -H 
i5        o    •*    o    i~    c^ 


o 
CI 


—    ■*    so 


?5 


g^    OS 
n    c^    fi 


CO   o 
I-    w^ 

8  ?3 


o    r- 

(N    eo 


o 


o 


CO     i.~ 

»0     rf 


2i    <N    C><    «    N 


0>     Tj< 

-H       ?0 

8  8 


CJ       CI       CO       rt       ^H 


CO   1^    1^ 

as    o    "C 

s  ^  s 


OS 

00 

o 


'»•    o    »o 
-<    1^    r- 

t^    O    o 


00    '-'?   o    eo 
•gi   <N   CO   S 

3   S   8 


e<i   C4   es   e^   es 


OS 

eo 


C^     C>»     .-(     CO 


S-^    «o    O    1^ 
«0     ifl     iC     »c 


50      to 


s 


o 


"5    »   r^    oc    OS 

o    eo    <c    c    o 


p      -H      CO      -^f. 

t>.     t>.     !»     t» 


S/ 


■  s 


T 


•  •» 


Y 


A. 


< 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET   SUGAR. 


75 


One  of  the  most  conspicuous  facts  brought  out  in  the  table  is  the 
wide  variation  in  net  factory  costs.  As  a  rule  the  highest  cost  is 
found  in  those  factories  where  the  cost  of  beets  per  100  pounds  of 
sugar  was  highest.  The  lowest  cost  per  100  pounds  of  sugar,  how- 
ever, is  not  so  often  accompanied  by  the  lowest  cost  of  beets.  When 
the  abnormally  high  net  cost  is  not  due  to  an  extremely  high  cost  of 
beets  it  can  usually  be  explained  by  some  peculiar  condition  or  un- 
usual circumstance.  For  example,  factory  No.  48,  excluding  depre- 
ciation, had  a  net  cost  of  $5.3165,  while  the  cost  of  beets  was  only 
$2.8784,  which  was  much  lower  than  several  other  factories  paid  for 
beets.  The  cost  of  fuel,  operating  labor,  and  administration  expense 
were  unusually  high.  This  factory  had  also  unusually  heavy  mis- 
cellaneous losses,  which  could  not  be  assigned  to  any  particular  cause 
and  were  therefore  charged  against  sugar.  The  extremely  high  cost 
for  factory  Xo.  74  was  largely  due  to  very  high  costs  for  maintenance 
and  repairs  and  to  very  high  administrative  and  office  expense. 

It  should  be  noted  that  when  depreciation  is  taken  into  account  the 
high  cost  in  both  factories  No.  48  and  No.  74  is  still  more  conspicuous. 
Because  of  the  short  period  of  operation  the  production  of  these  fac- 
tories was  very  small,  and  therefore  the  depreciation  per  100  pounds 
of  sugar  was  correspondingly  high,  being  $1.13  in  No.  48  and  $1.12 
in  No.  74.  These  high  charges  for  depreciation  made  the  cost  in  each 
of  these  factories  exceed  $6.40  per  100  pounds. 

Relation  of  various  cost  items  to  the  total  factory  cost. — 
The  margin  between  the  total  cost  of  producing  sugar,  not  including 
depreciation,  and  the  cost  of  beets  (see  p.  77)  indicates  the  extent 
to  which  strictly  manufacturing  costs  influence  the  final  cost  of 
sugar.  For  example,  it  cost  factory  No.  48,  $2.5358  gross  per  100 
pounds  to  manufacture  sugar  from  its  beets.  Its  credits  for  stock 
in  process  and  by-products  reduced  this  to  $2.4381  as  the  net  cost 
of  manufacture.  Its  cost  for  fuel,  operating  labor  and  administra- 
tive expense  were  extremely  high,  amounting  to  $1.8193.  In  factory 
No.  18,  the  total  net  cost  was  almost  exactly  the  same  although  the 
beet  cost  was  much  greater.  It  cost  the  latter  factory  only  $1.4389 
gross  per  100  pounds  to  manufacture  and  the  credits  for  stock  in 
process  and  by-products  reduced  this  to  $0.8364  net.  The  difference 
in  the  net  cost  of  manufacture  between  factorv  No.  18  and  f actor v 
No.  48  offset  the  difference  in  cost  of  beets  and  equalized  their  net 
factory  costs.  While,  broadly  speaking,  the  cost  of  beets  is  the  most 
important  factor  in  the  total  cost  of  sugar  this  comparison  empha- 
sizes the  importance  of  low  manufacturing  cost. 

By  reference  to  Table  14,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  value  of  stock  in 
process  and  by-products  is  very  large  for  a  number  of  those  factories 
that  show  a  low  net  manufacturing  cost.  The  influence  of  by-prod- 
ucts upon  the  net  cost  of  sugar  is  discussed  elsewhere.     The  relative 


:»._m-:-TUi 


mi. 


76  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 

importance  of  the  cost  of  beets  and  the  other  cost  items  is  clearly 
brought  out  in  Table  15  below.  In  this  comparison  only  items  re- 
quiring an  actual  cash  expenditure  are  included  and  depreciation  is 
not  considered. 

Table  15.-RELATI0N  OF  CERTAIN  COST  ITEMS  TO  NET  FACTORY  COST    FOR  THE 

5- YEAR  PERIOD  1909-1913,  BY  FACTORIES. 
[Expressed  in  percentages  of  total  net  factory  cost,  not  including  depreciation.] 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET  SUGAK^ 


77 


V 

■  \ 


Factory 
No. 


Beets. 


1 

2 

«5. . .  I . . 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

,20 

21 

23 

24 

25 

26 

29 

30 

31 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 


78.3 

75.7 

84.3 

74.6 

75.8 

81,7 

79.6 

77.6 

81.9 

83.4 

79.9 

84.6 

79.1 

74.2. 

76.1 

86.0 

84.3 

79.0 

77.0 

82.5 

74.7 

72.4 

75.4 

87.2 

63.9 

71.5 

58.9 

68.3 

72.0 

76.1 

77.2 

72.2 


Mainte 

nance 

and 

repairs, 


3.6 
4.6 
7.3 
5.8 
4.5 
3.9 
3.5 
2.9 
1.6 
2.0 

5:8  j 

4.7  I 

4.1 

5.9 

5.6 

4.6 

3.1 

4.0 

4.5 

4.5 

3.7 

5.2 

6.1 

2.4 

7.6 

5.2 

10.0 

5.4 

3.2 

4.7 

4.0 

4.1 


Oper- 
ating 
labor. 


6.0 
8.4 
5.0 
10.1 
9.2 
6.8 
10.0 
12.4 
6.8 
7.6 
6.7 
6.2 
7.5 
7.7 
8.5 
6.1 
7.0 
7.8 
6.4 
8.5 
6.9 
9.4 
8.0 
8.7 
10.3 
8.2 
7.2 
7.8 
8.1 
6.1 
6.9 
6.7 


Admin 
istra- 
tive 
and 
office 
ex- 
pense. 


Other 
ex- 
penses. 


5.4 
4.3 
4.3 
3.8 
4.8 
4.7 
3.5 
3.9 
5.1 
5.4 
*4.6 
4.3 
4.1 
4.6 
4.5 
4.6 
3.7 
3.0 
5.4 
2.2 
4.7 
3.9 
4.5 
5.1 
9.4 
5.8 
7.3 
5.9 
5.9 
7.0 
6.5 
5.6 


6.7 
7.0 
1.9 
5.7 
5.7 
2.9 
3.4 
3.2 
4.6 
1.6 
3.0 
.2 
5.2 
7.6 
5.3 
U.3 
1.9 
6.2 
6.7 
2.3 
10.0 
9.1 
6.0 
»3.4 
8.8 
9.3 
16.6 
12.6 
10.8 
6.1 
5.4 
11.4 


Factory 
No. 


Beets. 


39 

40 , 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64....... 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

73 

74 


77.2 

75.8 

71.5 

69.0 

68.3 

76.7 

60.0 

67.6 

61.4 

54.1 

53.9 

68.4 

67.8 

69.5 

65.7 

67.9 

68.2 

66.7 

72.3 

64.4 

74.4 

65.3 

60.4 

74.6 

62.7 

75.8 

60.7 

69.7 

73.9 

69.5 

56.6 

58.5 


Mainte 

nance 

and 

repairs. 


4.5 
4.6 
4.0 
5.3 
4.8 
4.4 
7.0 
5.6 
5.4 
1.8 
10.4 
6.5 
7.2 
6.7 
8.0 
4.6 
6.2 
8.2 
4.7 
5.7 
4.7 
5.3 
10.7 
1.5 
6.8 
h.O 
10.0 
5.1 
4.1 
5.3 
9.1 
7.3 


Oper- 
ating 
labor. 


5.9 
6.6 
7.1 
7.8 
7.8 
6.7 
9.0 
7.3 
8.9 
12.9 
12.6 
9.1 
9.2 
9.3 
7.8 
7.6 
6.9 
8.0 
6.9 
7.9 
8.7 
7.6 
6.3 
9.1 
9.2 
14.9 
9.9 
6.8 
6.0 
12.5 
13.3 
10.5 


Admin 
istra- 
tive 
and 
office 
ex- 
pense. 


6.8 
7.5 
5.8 
5.4 
6.5 
6.9 
8.3 
7.4 
10.7 
9.9 
6.6 
5.5 
5.0 
4.7 
5.4 
6.4 
5.6 
5.0 
6.8 
5.9 
5.4 
7.4 
7.7 
7.2 
8.8 
6.1 
6.8 
5.0 
7.0 
3.4 
5.2 
12.3 


Other 
ex- 
penses. 


5.6 
5.5 
11.6 
12.5 
12.6 
5.3 
15.7 
12.1 
13.6 
21.3 
16.5 
10.5 
10.8 
9.S 
13.1 
13.5 
13.1 
12.1 
9.S 
16.1 
6.» 
14.4 
14. » 
7.6 
12.5 
1.2 
12.  & 
13.4 
9.0 
9.3 
15.  & 
11.4 


1  Other  expenses  exceeded  by  miscellaneous  gains. 

Relation  of  cost  of  beets  to  cost  or  sugar.— The  cost  of  beets 
indicated  m  Table  15  represents  from  less  than  54  per  cent  to  about' 
8^  per  cent  of  the  net  cost  of  sugar.  The  average  for  the  64  fac> 
tones  was  about  72  per  cent.  Speaking  broadly,  those  factories  that 
paid  the  least  for  beets  had  the  lowest  costs  of  production.  It  should 
be  kept  m  mmd  that  the  cost  of  beets  used  in  all  these  cost  tables  is 
the  expenditure  for  the  beets  necessary  to  make  100  pounds  of  sugar. 
The  cost  of  beets  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  does  not  necessarily  mean 


T 


Y 


\ 


/ 


< 


a  high  cost  per  ton  of  beets,  but  a  high  cost  for  each  per  cent  of  sugar 
extracted.  Thus  $5.50  per  ton  for  beets  showing  an  extraction  of  12 
per  cent  is  a  higher  price  to  the  factory  than  $6  for  beets  showing  an 
extraction  of  14  per  cent. 

The  relation  of  sugar  cost  to  beet  cost  is  brought  out  in  Tables  16- 
and  17  below.  In  Table  16  the  net  factory  cost  is  arranged  in 
descending  order,  and  in  Table  17  the  gross  factory  cost  is  arranged 
in  the  same  way.  The  difference  between  the  net  factory  cost  shown 
in  Table  16  and  the  gross  cost  shown  in  Table  17  represents  the 
amount  credited  for  by-products  and  miscellaneous  gains  or  the 
amount  added  for  miscellaneous  losses.  It  should  be  noted  that  the 
value  of  by-products  varies  greatly.  This  is  explained  hereafter. 
(See  p.  81.)  The  cost  of  beets  in  each  factory  is  shown  parallel  to 
the- net  factory  cost  not  including  depreciation. 

TABLE  16.— COMPARISON  OF  COST  OF  BEETS  WITH  GROSS  COST  OF  SUGAR,  NOT  INCLUIV 
ING  DEPRECIATION;  AVERAGES  FOR  THE  5  YEARS  1909-10  TO  1913-14,  INCLUSIVE. 

[Computed  on  basis  of  100  pounds  of  sugar  produced.] 


Factory  No. 

Gross 
cost  of 
sugar. 

Cost  of 
beets. 

Margin. 

Factory  No. 

Gross 
cost  of 
sugar. 

Cost  of 
beets. 

Margin. 

ifl                         

$5.9215 
5.8879 
5.6818 
5.6735 
5.4575 
5.4142 
5.4064 
5. 1218 
5.0720 
5.0278 
4. 8870 
4.8294 
4. 7970 
4.6478 
4.6286 
4.6224 
4.4522 
4.4465 
4.4366 
4.4249 
4.4148 
4.3524 
4.3184 
4.3168 
4.3135 
4.2572 
4. 1770 
4.1505 
4.0882 
4.0829 
4.0192 
3.9875 

$4.4826 
3.2449 
3.8068 
3.0913 
4.0992 
2.8784 
3.6718 
3. 4896 
3. 8698- 
3.5510 

'2.4514 
3.4657 
3.2680 
3.1783 
3.4178 
3.2775 
3.3248 
3.3326 
3.0932 
3.2678 
3.1247 
2. 7514^ 
2.4860 
3.0183 
3.0896 
3. 1562 
2.2996 
2.8779 
2.3060 
3.0602 
2.6365 
2.2858 

$1.4389 
2.6430 
1.8750 
2.5822 
1.3583 
2.5358 
1.7346 
1.6322 
1.2022 
1.4768 
2.4356 
1.3637 
1.5290 
1.4695 
1.2108 
1.3449 
1.1274 
1.1139 
1.3434 
1.1571 
1.2901 
1.6010 
1.8324 
1.2985 
1.2239 
1.1010 
1.8774 
1.2726 
1.7822 
1.0227 
1.3827 
1.7017 

14 

$3.9171 
3. 8718 
3.8622 
3. 7912 
3.7218 
3.6734 
3.6703 
3.6700 
3.6615 
3.6563 
3.6557 
3.6541 
3.6046 
3.5949 
3.5914 
3.5685 
3.4753 
3.4374 
3.3940 
3.3902 
3.3746 
3.3623 
3.3545 
3.3481 
3.^170 
3.2822 
3.2550 
3.23.T3 
3.0632 
3.0442 
3.0355 
2.7830 

$2.8280 
2.8327 
2.6878 
2.5089 
2.6164 
2.5465 
2.5840 
2.6129 
2.2541 
2.4360 
2.6055 
2.7293 
2.0770 
2.3243 
2.3462 
1.9930 
2.3948 
2.3528 
2.1535 
2.3128 
2.0964 
2.1630 
2.3056 
2.1457 
2. 1425 
2.1191 
2.0756 
2.0835 
1.7907 
2.0619 
2. 0775 
1.6357 

$1.0891 

OQ                                            

7 

1.0391 

4                                       ... 

36 

1.1  44 

74                                 .    .. 

65 

1.2823. 

3                                   

40 

1.1054 

AH                                ... 

35 

1.1269 

24 

44 

1.0863- 

2                        

39 

1.0571 

26                 . 

54 

1.4074 

25                     

34 

1.2203. 

50                     .       .   .. 

37 

1.0502 

20                     

17 

0.9248- 

5 

68 

1.5276 

23 

43 

1.2706 

19                            

42 

1.2452 

8                          .'.... 

73 

1.5755 

6 

70 

1.0805 

10 

30 

1.0846< 

16 

11 

56 

1.2405 

41 

1.0774 

12 

61 

1.2782 

67 

45 

53 

1.1993 

38 

1.0489- 

62 

57 

1.2024 

1 

• 

71 

1.1745 

13                        ... 

51 * 

1.1631 

66                         ... 

52 

1.1794 

15                     

55 

1.1518 

47                             •   .. 

63 

1.2725 

21 

60....: 

0.9823 

46 

69 

0.9580 

31.                   

64 

1.1473; 

<4i!3lfc.  l^ltfSlfT^^A'^y 


%l^ 


78 


THE   BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 


Table  17.-C0MPARIS0N  OF  COST  OF  BEETS  WITH  NET  COST  OF  SUGAR,  NOT  INCLUDING 
DEPRECIATION;  AVERAGE  FOR  THE  5  YEARS  19(»-10  TO  1913-14,  INCLUSIVE. 

[Computed  on  basis  of  100  pounds  of  sugar  produced.] 


Factory  No. 


18. 

48. 

74. 

4.. 

29. 

24. 

3.. 

25. 

2.. 

50. 

20. 

26. 

19. 

5.. 

23. 

8.. 

45. 

10. 

6.. 

16.. 

62.. 

1... 

11.. 

12.. 

46.. 

31.. 

15.. 

47.. 

13.. 

21.. 

66.. 

67-. 


Net 
factwy 
cost  of 
sugar. 


S5.3190 
5.3165 
5.2879 
5.1005 
5.0813 
5.0728 
4.8652 
4.7126 
4.6074 
4.5449 
4.5037 
4.4366 
4.3255 
4.3107 
4.2566 
4.2233 
4.1435 
4.0712 
4.0686 
4.0615 
4.0589 
3.9439 
3.9180 
3.9091 
3.8986 
3.8818 
3.8795 
3. 7532 
3. 7319 
3.7088 
3.6696 
3.6310 


Cost  of 
beets. 


Margin. 


$4.4826 
2.8784 
3.0913 
3.8068 
3.2449 
3. 6718 
4.0992 
3.5510 
3.4896 
2.4514 
3.4657 
3.8698 
3. 4178 
3.2680 
3.1783 
3.2775 
2.4860 
3.3326 
3.3248 
3.0932 
3.0183 
3.0896 
3.2678 
3. 1247 
2.6365 
2.2858 
2.8779 
2.3060 
3.1562 
3.0602 
2.29% 
2. 7514 


$0.8364 
2.4381 
2.1966 
L2937 
L8364 
1.4010 
.7660 
1. 1616 
1. 1178 
2.0935 
1.0380 
.5668 
.9077 
1.0427 
1.0783 
.9458 
1.6575 
.7386 
.7438 
.9713 
1.0406 
.8543 
.6502 
.7844 
1.2621 
1.5960 
1.0016 
1.4472 
.5757 
.6486 
1.3700 
.8796 


Factory  No. 


14. 

34. 

7.. 

35. 

36. 

73. 

40. 

54. 

68. 

43. 

42. 

39. 

37. 

44. 

65. 

30. 

61. 

70. 
41., 
57.. 
38.. 

17.. 
56.. 
53.. 
51.. 
71.. 
55.. 
52.. 
69.. 
60.. 
63.. 
64.. 


Net 
factory 
cost  of 
sugar. 


Cost  of 
beets. 


Margin. 


$3. 5744 
3.5660 
3.5589 
3.5350 
3.5318 
3. 5215 
3.4521 
3.4334 
3. 42.38 
3.4046 
3.4006 
3.38<J6 
3.3743 
3.3675 
3.36.38 
3.2910 
3.2551 
3. 2.387 
3. 2350 
3.2188 
3. 1941 
3. 1735 
3. 1584 
3.  Iia5 
3.0983 
3.0838 
3.0700 
3.0600 
2. 9794 
2. 8510 
2. 7413 
2.7094 


$2. 8280 
2.4360 
2.8327 
2.5465 
2.6878 
1.9930 
2.6164 
2.2541 
2. 0770 
2. 3243 
2.3462 
2.6129 
2.6055 
2.5840 
2.5089 
2.8528 
2.0964 
2.-3948 
2.3128 
2. 14.57 
2.3056 
2.7293 
2. 1.535 
2.1630 
2. 1191 
2.1425 
2.0835 
2.0756 
2. 0775 
2.0619 
1.7907 
1.6.357 


$0.7464 
1.1300 
.7262 
.9885 
.8440 
1.5285 
.8357 
1. 1793 
1.3468 
1.0803 
1.0544 
.7737 
.7688 
.7835 
.8549 
.9382 
1. 1587 
.8439 
.9222 
1. 0731 
.8885 
.4442 
1.0049 
.9475 
.9792 
.9413 
.9865 
.9844 
.9019 
.7891 
.9506 
1. 0737 


The  striking  relation  between  beet  cost  and  sugar  cost  is  shown  by 
these  tables,  although  this  relation  is  by  no  means  uniform.  .  Some- 
times other  items  of  expense  overcome  a  comparatively  low  cost  of 
beets,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  a  low  price  for  beets  may  partially 
or  entirely  counterbalance  the  high  cost  for  other  items.  In  general, 
liowever,  high  cost  of  sugar  is  accompanied  by  high  cost  of  beets. 
It  is  seen  that  o£  the  24  factories  having  a  net  cost  per  100  pounds  of 
sugar  above  $3.90  only  three  secured  their  beets  at  a  cost  below  $3 
for  each  100  pounds  of  sugar  produced,  and  of  the  40  factories  having 
a  net  cost  of  sugar  below  $3.90  only  two  paid  as  much  as  $3  for 
beets. 

While  the  cost  of  beets  is  by  far  the  largest  item  in  the  cost  of 
sugar  and  to  a  great  extent  the  controlling  element,  it  does  not  by  any 


r 


V 


•  y 


( 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET   SUGAR. 


79 


means  determine  the  factory  cost.  This  is  clearly  brought  out  in 
the  margin  between  the  net  factory  cost  of  sugar  and  the  cost  of 
beets  in  Table  16.  The  margin  in  the  table  includes  the  net  expense 
per  100  pounds  of  sugar  except  for  beets. 

These  margins  represent  the  cost  of  extracting  100  pounds  of  sugar 
from  beets,  not  including  depreciation,  or,  in  other  words,  the  strictly 
manufacturing  costs.  The  manufacturing  cost  ranges  from  44  cents 
per  100  pounds  to  $2.44. 

Of  course  when  the  cost  of  beets  is  relatively  high  other  cost  items 
must  be  relatively  low  and  vice  versa.  By  reference  to  Table  16  it 
will  be  seen  that  of  the  10  factories  showing  the  lowest  net  cost  in 
Table  14  only  one  had  a  cost  of  beets  exceeding  TO  per  cent  of  the 
total  net  cost  of  sugar.  Hence  approximately  30  per  cent  of  the  cost 
of  production  in  the  best  equipped  and  best  located  factories  con- 
sists of  net  manufacturing  costs.  In  other  words,  the  relation  of  the 
cost  of  beets  and  other  costs  is  about  7  to  3. 

Cost  including  depreciation. — As  already  pointed  out,  the  cost  of 
depreciation  is  affected  by  the  relation  of  output  to  the  value  of 
investment  in  depreciable  property.  Where  a  factory  operates  for 
an  unusually  short  period,  and  consequently  has  a  small  production, 
the  depreciation  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  is  necessarily  high.  Most 
of  the  higher  charges  for  depreciation  appearing  in  the  table  ar^due 
to  this  fact.  The  short  period  of  operation  is  usually  due  to  the  fact 
that  they  did  not  have  an  ample  supply  of  beets. 

The  cost  for  depreciation,  as  shown  in  Table  14  (see  p.  72).  ranges 
from  12  cents  per  100  pounds  in  factory  Xo.  71  to  $1.13  in  factory 
No.  48.  The  average  charge  for  all  the  64  factories  included  in  the 
table  was  26  cents  per  100  pounds.  The  range  of  the  total  cost  of 
production,  including  depreciation,  was,  f ix)m  $2.94  in  factory  Xo.  63 
to  $6.45  in  factory  No.  48.  Of  the  36  factories  that  had  an  average 
net  cost  of  production  of  less  than  $4  per  100  pounds  20  had  a  depre- 
ciation charge  of  not  exceeding  22  cents,  and  only  3  had  a  charge 
exceeding  30  cents. 

Section  6.  Average  cost  of  production  for  5  years,  by  States. 

As  already  stated,  some  factories  operating  only  one  or  two  years 
were  omitted  from  Table  14  in  order  to  avoid  disclosing  their  iden- 
tity. The  average  cost  of  all  factories  operating  during  the  5-year 
period  can  be  shown  by  States,  however,  without  making  such  a  dis- 
closure.   These  costs  are  shown  in  Table  18. 


80 


THE  BEET   SUGAR  INDUSTRY   IN    THE   UNITED   STATES. 


O 


QQ 

> 


o 

CO 

< 

QQ 

« 
tJ 

GQ 

Q 

.   < 
o 

Em 
O 

Q 

2; 

D 
O 

o, 
S 

CJ 
S5 

O 

aj 
a, 

O 

Ci 
!» 

o 
> 

t 

00 

H 

>J 
CQ 

-< 

E- 


c2     .S     •c-c 


i 


^  «■.£  s  £  5 

■^  S.  S  C  r  ©  as 
•—       c  tl  '-'  o 


£ 


5J  y  C 

SI  a 


^  g  — '2 
5dC3 


M    =«    U      • 

«  ce  J?  *a 


o  C  X  Q  2  « 
CO      ^•-       >» 


-  ^^  » 

j£  s=  5  ^ 

C  03  «8  eS 


05  en 


13 


©  t-  o 

O  08^ 


to         ' 

'»m  _^  .^^    © 

O  flS  C8  cs 


O  J,    OS 


•^/o  ® 


J 


CD 


t^    CO    t^    of 

c«»  1^  X  -; 


S      3C 

fr*    oc    CI    — 

«    «C    -"l"    o 


•■c   ^^ 
'j5    05 


f^   ■^   -^   ■^  n  n  »c 


ce 


i  ^  I  3  ^  i^  ?  i 


2  S  S  g?  s 

8  g  8  g  i  g  §' 


^      05 


g     - 


2»    £2    ^    OJ    •x>    CO    ?o    eo 
I:  S   £  2  2   2ft  t-  M 


1^    evj    ©    »H 


x   06 


X 

CO 

f3 


C<5     X 


iisiiiii 


-<  CJ  >— 

W  OS  tC 

•O  13  ;£ 

o  S  S 


CJ     A     o     •^     X 
»C     »     ?o     10     N. 

g  s  i  fe  s 


g 


n   1^ 

2  ?^ 


X      Sf     !>.      CC     -H 

a   S    «c   ;*    05 

!C      X      i-<     t>.     !>. 


o 


r;   =c   >fl 


M 


g  I  I  I  a  i  i  § 


e«» 


"3 


S 


CM    n 


o 


S3  J?  -*  '^2  OC  -- 

50  h»  «  ;C  t>.  X 

05  !0  £0  2  <*«  S      C5 

-4  -*  (N  »^  ,-.  S     ?» 


X     U5 

IP 

CM 


O 


i  §  g  s 


X    X     «     Q     :C 

®    jc    t    ©    it 

J2     "O    ^    !>. 

0000 


o 


£J     »C     X     .0 
X     -^     50     ~ 


-K    £S    3C 

o    cc    r- 

co    ■*    ^ 


g*^ 


o 


X 

2? 


X     «     M     ^     t>.     ^ 

3;   ?c    ;*   q    ■*   c^ 

d 


o    e»»    i>.    ,— I    c>j    ar    ^    jg 
d 


I    r2    2    ^    g    CJ    jr^    ^ 


e«5 


S 


CO 


?5« 


s 
^ 


I 

Em 


s. 


CO 


8 


S 


OJ 


X 


CM 


§5 


X 

8 


CM 


es 

44 

3 
xs 

o 

15 

»  <    a> 
3  "^    > 

J2   .2    ® 

I  ^   ~ 

«    =     qT 
M    en  .Q 

ill 

©   as 

■*^     .0     ^^ 

SO    O   <^ 
is  *^      ^ 

•2  o  ® 

S    S    T 

3  q"  3 
•0  •§  M 

•o   §   o 
£  >  5j 

*s    •«    73 

111 

55    O    3 

fes  g 

o    --  «• 

« 

•O 
09 


©  q 


B 
"5     C    "m     B 

i  1  §.i 


•S     E 


C3 

m 
g 

©         A 

'      "5      S3 

E  2   02 
'^    A    >- 


o   o 

©I  S 

^  S  t? 

O   -w  ^ 
•w    e8 

>>     ©• 


CO 

III 


<:.■ 

■e       E 


as 


2  l^-S 


CJ    JE 


c8    C:i.;-:x:o«j:^ 


> 


.■« 


.t 


A 


/ 


•'      •/ 


< 


» 


COST   OF   PRODUCING  BEET   SUGAR. 


81 


The  above  table  shows  the  cost  of  production  for  all  74  factories 
for  5  years.  The  average  net  factory  cost  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  in 
the  entire  United  States  during  the  5  years  ending  with  the  campaign 
of  1913-14,  not  including  depreciation,  was  $3.5011  per  100.  pounds, 
and  $3.7641  including  depreciation.  The  lowest  average  cost,  includ- 
ing depreciation,  of  any  State  was  $3.27-26  in  California.  This  was 
followed  by  $3.4256  in  Utah  and  Idaho.  The  highest  average  cost  ih 
any  State,  not  including  depreciation,  w  as  $4.4860  in  Wisconsin,  and 
the  highest  cost,  including  depreciation,  was  $5.0193  for  the  group 
in  scattering  States.  The  table  indicates  that  the  factories  in  Cali- 
fornia, Colorado,  Montana  and  Nebraska,  Utah  and  Idaho  are  the 
most  favorably  situated  for  a  low  cost  of  production.  These  States 
contain  43  of  the  74  factories  included  in  the  table,  and  they  pro- 
duced about  73  per  cent  of  the  total  beet  sugar  production  in  the 
United  States  during  5  years.  More  than  half  of  the  beet  sugar  in 
the  United  States  during  these  5  years  was  produced  in  California 
and  Colorado  at  an  average  cost  of  $3.28  per  100  pounds,  not  includ- 
ing depreciation. 

The  lowest  cost  of  beets  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  in  any  State 
was  $2.0461  in  California  and  the  highest  $3.5033  in  Wisconsin.  The 
States  having  the  lowest  cost  of  production  also  had  the  lowest  cost 
of  beets  per  100  pounds  of  sugar,  except  the  States  embraced  in  the 
group  of  "  other  States."  The  highest  cost  of  fuel  was  in  the  group 
of  States  covering  scattered  fnctories  and  the  lowest  was  in  Colo- 
rado. The  cost  of  operating  labor  was  highest  in  Ohio  and  lowest 
in  Colorado. 

A  significant  fact  brought  out  in  the  above  table  is  the  high  value 
of  by-products  in  the  Lake  States.  The  amounts  in  the  column 
showing  credits  for  stock  in  process  and  by-products  are  mainly  for 
by-products  consisting  of.  pulp  and  molasses.  This  is  true  of  Ohio, 
Michigan,  and  Wisconsin,  and  it  is  also  true  of  the  group  of  States 
including  the  factories  in  Indiana,  Iowa,  and  Minnesota.  This  large 
credit  for  by-products  in  these  States  is  due  to  the  great  value  of 
^lulp.  The  factories  in  the  Western  States  are  so  situated  that  they 
must  dispose  of  their  pulp  in  the  green  state  at  the  factory,  since 
freight  rates  as  a  rule  do  not  permit  the  shipping  of  dried  pulp  to 
the  chief  consuming  centers.  The  factories  in  the  Lake  States,  how- 
ever, have  accessible  markets  for  dried  pulp,  and  this  is  quite  a 
profitable  feature  of  their  business. 

Effect  of  by-products  on  net  cost. — The  by-products  of  a  beet- 
sugar  factory  are  very  important.  The  extent  to  which  they  can  be 
utilized  materially  affects  net  costs  and  consequently  profits.  The 
principal  by-products,  as  already  stated,  are  pulp  and  molasses.  In 
fact,  there  is  no  other  by-product  worth  considering.    The  circum- 


/•.' 


•-<.iit..-s- 


..n^rr-f/    v  >  >  .       / 


82 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 


stances  affecting  the  value  of  these  by-products  are  so  different  that 
they  are  here  considered  separately.  The  extent  to  which  pulp  and 
molasses  affect  the  net  cost  of  sugar  in  the  various  States  is  shown  in 
the  following  table : 

Table  19.— AVERAGE  NET  VALUE  OF  BY-PRODUCTS  PER  100  POUNDS  OF  SUGAR  PRO- 
DUCED, BY  STATES,  FOR  5  YEARS  ENDING  1913-14. 


state. 

Pulp. 

Molasses. 

Total. 

California 

$0.0623 
.0543 
.1355 
.1939 
.2487 
.0612 
.0461 
.0795 

$0.0479 
.1097 
.2143 
.1558 
.1701 
.0745 
.0706 
.1781 

SO. 1102 
.1640 
.3498 
.3497 

.4188 

11S7 

Colorado 

Wisconsin 

Michigan . ; 

Ohio 

Montana-Nebraska 

Utah-Idaho 

.1167 
.2576 

Other  states 

Average,  United  States 

.0904 

.1025 

.1929 

From  the  foregoing  table  it  is  seen  that  the  average  net  value  of 
by-products  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  for  the  United  States  during 
the  5  years  ending  with  1913-14  was  more  than  19  cents.  The  high- 
est net  value  was  nearly  42  cents  in  Ohio  while  the  lowest  was  11 
cents  in  California.  The  net  value  of  by-products  in  the  three  Lake 
States  averaged  more  than  35  cents  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  pro- 
duced, whereas  the  average  in  the  States  from  Colorado  west  was 
very  much  less  than  one-half  as  much.  The  reason  for  this  differ- 
ence in  the  value  of  by-products  will  appear  in  the  discussion  imme- 
diately following. 

Pulp. — Some  factories  realize  much  more  for  pulp  than  others. 
This  is  not  because  they  produce  relatively  more  pulp  than  others 
but  it  is  due  to  conditions  in  the  region  where  the  factories  are 
located.  This  product  is  used  mainly  for  feeding  stock.  If  other 
feeds  are  plentiful  and  cheap  in  the  vicinity  of  the  factory,  pulp 
brings  a  correspondingly  lower  price  unless  a  market  can  be  found  in 
other  localities.  There  are  ample  markets  to  take  all  the  pulp  made, 
but  they  are  sometimes  so  far  from  factories,  particularly  those  in 
the  West,  that  high  freight  rates  prohibit  its  profitable  shipment. 

From  the  foregoing  table  it  is  seen  that  the  value  of  pulp  per 
100  pounds  of  sugar  produced  is  very  much  higher  in  the  Lake 
States  than  elsewhere.  In  those  States  the  value  ranges  from  about 
14  cents  in  Wisconsin  to  nearly  25  cents  in  Ohio.  Pulp  when  dried 
yields  a  better  return  to  the  factory  than  when  green.  This  is  due 
mainly  to  the  fact  that  dried  pulp  can  be  kept  and  put  upon  the 
market  gradually  as  the  demand  seems  to  assure  the  best  price, 
whereas  green  pulp  can  not  be  kept  indefinitely  and  can  not  be 


A) 


< 


\ 


/ 


•   y 


( 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET  SUGAR. 


83 


shipped  any  considerable  distance.  To  some  extent  the  difference  in 
the  value  of  dried  and  green  pulp  is  that  the  former  is  suitable  for  a 
greater  variety  of  purposes  than  the  latter.  For  instance,  the  green 
article  is  not  considered  a  satisfactory  feed  for  dairy  cattle,  but 
is  useful  mainly  for  fattening  purposes. 

Molasses. — The  value  of  molasses  as  a  by-product  depends  mainly 
upon  the  same  conditions  that  affect  the  value  of  pulp — that  is,  the 
demand  for  feed  for  stock.  Like  pulp,  it  is  a  valuable  food  for  stock ; 
but,  unlike  pulp,  it  can  be  otherwise  utilized.  Many  factories  put 
their  molasses  through  a  process  that  results  in  the  extraction  of  a 
considerable  quantity  of  sugar.  When  this  process  is  employed  the 
quantity  of  molasses  left  as  a  by-product  is  very  much  reduced,  but 
this  is  compensated  for  by  the  additional  quantity  of  sugar  extracted 
from  the  molasses.  If  the  value  of  molasses  is  considered  greater 
than  the  value  of  the  extra  sugar  that  can  be  extracted  from  it,  the 
factory  would  not  go  to  the  expense  of  extracting  the  sugar.  Whether 
all  the  molasses  produced  is  sold,  or  whether  it  is  run  through  the 
factory  for  the  purpose  of  extracting  more  sugar,  depends  upon  the 
relative  prices  of  sugar  and  molasses.  In  cases  where  the  sugar  is 
extracted  from  the  molasses  the  credit  for  this  item  is  much  less 
than  in  factories  which  dispose  of  the  entire  molasses  output. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  table  that,  taking  the  country 
as  a  whole,  the  average  value  of  molasses  per  100  pounds  of  sugar 
slightly  exceeds  the  average  value  of  pulp.  As  in  the  case  of  pulp, 
the  credits  from  molasses  are  highest  in  the  Lake  States.  The  chief 
reason  for  this  difference  is  that  the  proportion  of  molasses  put 
through  the  process  for  extracting  additional  sugar  is  much  greater 
in  the  West  than  in  the  Lake  States.  This  difference  in  the  treatment 
of  molasses  is  reflected  in  the  gross  factory  cost  of  sugar.  The  reason 
for  the  selling  of  the  greater  proportion  of  the  molasses  as  such  in 
the  Lake  States  than  elsewhere  is  due  to  a  better  market.  There  is  a 
greater  demand  for  molasses  as  a  stock  food  and  for  the  production 
of  alcohol  in  the  Lake  States  than  in  the  West. 

Unusually  high  costs  for  some  factories  in  1911-12. — About  25 
of  the  64  factories  shown  in  Table  14  had  costs  very  much  higher  in 
1911-12  than  in  any  other  year  under  consideration.  Most  of  the 
factories  having  these  high  costs  are  located  in  the  Lake  States. 
During  that  season  these  companies  incurred  heavy  losses  on  their 
beets  due  to  unfavorable  weather  conditions.  This  is  indicated  by 
the  unusually  high  cost  of  beets  for  those  factories  in  that  year.  One 
of  these  factories  lost  more  than  a  third  of  a  million  dollars  on  beet? 
during  that  season.  The  beets  were  purchased  and  paid  for,  but 
spoiled  before  they  could  be  converted  into  sugar. 

The  effect  of  this  abnormal  year  upon  the  average  cost  of  produc- 
tion in  Michigan,  Ohio,  and  Wisconsin  for  the  five  years  is  especially 


» 


9 


r^i-^- 


-  »"*r  J-^^"-^^*^g3 


[*K^> 


a  - 


S4  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Striking.  This  is  brought  out  in  Table  20  below.  This  table  shows 
the  average  net  cost  in  these  States  for  the  5-vear  period  ending 
with  1913-14,  the  average  cost  for  1911-12,  and  the  average  for  four 
years  omitting  the  abnormal  year.  There  is  also  shown  the  excess 
of  the  cost  in  1911-12  over  the  average  for  four  years. 

TABLE  20.-COMPARISON  OF  AVERAGE  NET  COST,  NOT  INCLUDING   DFPRFrTArrTnv 
THE  5  YEARS  ENDING  WITH  1913-14,  THE  YEAR  1911-12,  AND  FOR  4  YEARS  EXCLUDING 


Excess 

Average 

Average 

Average 

Excess  of 

cost  of 

State. 

net  cost 

net  cost 

net  cost 

1911-12 

beets  in 

for 

for 

for 

over  av- 

1911-12 

5  years. 

4  years. 

1911-12. 

erage  for 
4  years. 

over  av- 
erage for 
4  years. 

Michigan 

$3.9334 
4.3030 

$3.6203 
3.9629 

$5.1123 
5.9823 

$1.4920 
2.0194 

Ohio 

$1.2741 

-.-...--..,..,,.,,, 

1.9142 

w  isconsin 

4.4860 

4.0700 

5.8239 

1.7539 

1.6475 

United  States 

3.5041 

3.4299 

3.8149 

.3850 

.3010 

Excluding  1911-12  from  the  five-year  period,  the  average  net  cost, 
not  including  depreciation  for  the  other  four  years,  was  below  the 
average  net  cost  for  1911-12  $1.49,  $2.02,  and  $1.75.  respectively,  for 
Michigan,  Ohio,  and  Wisconsin.    The  average  for  the  four  vears  was 
^8J  cents  per  100  pounds  less  than  the  average  for  1911-12.  "^  The  last 
column  of  the  above  table  shows  the  excess  of  the  cost  of  beets  per 
100  pounds  of  sugar  in  1911-12  over  the  average  for  four  years.    It 
is  seen  that  the  excess  cost  in  these  States  during  this  abnormal  year 
Tvas  due  almost  entirely  to  the  extraordinarily  high  cost  of  beets. 
The  factories  in  these  States  contracted  for  their  beets  as  usual. 
There  was  a  very  large  crop,  accompanied  by  exceptionally  unfavor- 
able weather  during  the  operating  season.    Many  of  the  beets  spoiled, 
and  some  factories,  finding  they  would  be  unable  to  work  their  beets, 
permitted  them  to  remain  in  the  field.    However,  they  had  contracted 
for  the  entire  yield  and  had  to  pay  for  them,  even  though  they  did 
not  use  them.    All  the  expense  for  beets  was  properly  charged  against 
sugar  whether  the  beets  were  worked  or  not. 

The  abnormally  high  cost  of  production  in  1911-12  is  reflected  in 
the  5-year  averages.  This  is  clearly  indicated  by  a  comparison  of 
the  averages  in  these  States  for  the  5-year  period  and  for  the  4  vears 
excluding  1911-12.  The  difference  in  the  averages  was  from  30  to  40 
cents  per  100  pounds.  Of  course,  the  high  costs  in  these  three  States 
are  reflected  m  the  average  for  the  United  States.  Thus  the  costs 
for  the  whole  United  States  for  the  4  years  was  about  7  cents  per 
100  pounds  less  than  the  average  for  the  5  years,  including  the  ab- 
normal year.  This  difference  is  also  seen  to  have  been  due  to  a  dif- 
ference in  the  cost  of  beets  per  100  pounds  of  sugar. 


1 

I] 


COST  OF  PBODUCIN^a  BBBT  BUGAB. 


86 


Section  7.  Average  costs  by  groups  of  factories. 

Grouping  the  64  factories  covered  by  Table  14  according  to  their 
net  cost  of  production  brings  out  the  percentage  of  the  total  produc- 
tion in  the  United  States  during  the  5  years  ending  with  the  cam- 
paign of  1913-14  that  was  produced  within  certain  cost  limits.  For 
this  purpose  6  groups  have  been  made,  4  of  them  according  to  the  net 
cost  per  100  pounds,  not  including  depreciation,  and  2  of  them 
according  to  the  net  cost  including  depreciation.  Table  21  below 
shows  the  number  of  factories  included  in  each  group,  the  percentage 
of  the  total  production  manufactured  by  each  group,  the  average  net 
cost  per  100  pounds,  excluding  depreciation,  the  depreciation  per 
100  pounds,  and  the  average  net  cost  per  100  pounds,  including  de- 
preciation. There  is  also  shown  the  total  for  the  64  factories  in- 
cluded in  Table  14. 

Table  21.— AVERAGE  NET  COST  PER  100  POUNDS  OF  SUGAR,  AND  THE  PERCENT- 
AGE OF  THE  TOTAL  SUGAR  PRODUCED  DURING  THE  FIVE  YEARS  ENDING  WITH 
THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  19ia-14,  FOR  64  FACTORIES  GROUPED  ACCORDING  TO  THE  NET 
COST   OF  PRODUCTION. 


Groups. 


Number 

of 
foetorles. 


Percent 


Average 
net  oost 


I 


Average 


1  Cost  not  exceeding  $3.25,  not  including  depreoiation. 

2.  Cost  over  $3.25,  but  less  than  $3.50,  not  including 

depreciation 

3.  Cost  over  $3.50,  but  le«  than  $4,  not  ineluding  de» 

preciation 

4.  Cost  over  $4,  not  including  depreciation 

5.  Cost  over  $4,  including  depreciation 

6.  Cost  less  than  $4,  including  depreciation 

Total ^!:i':ii ..... 


15 

11 
11 

21 
28 
36 


64 


rer  u«uv  per  100   I  DepTBCl-     ^r  lf« 

**i.!Sif*  I  W?  jationper    PJ^ 

sugar    I  not  In-   i      100         indud- 

produced.1  eluding  |  pounds   i^gdepre- 


tlon. 


37 

20 

24 
15 
22 

74  1 


13.03 

3.37 

3.60 
4.49 
4.29 
$.26 


96 


3.49 


SO.  20 
.2S 

.35 
.35 

.n 


13.23 

3.60 

3.96 
4.g4 
4.64 
3.  It 


.25 


S.74 


Particular  attention  is  directed  to  the  fact  that  the  foregoing  table 
includes  96  per  cent  of  all  the  beet  sugar  produced  in  the  United 
States  during  the  5  years  covered  by  this  report.  Of  the  15  factories 
included  in  the  first  group,  4  had  an  average  cost  of  less  than  $3  per 
100  pounds,  excluding  depreciation,  and  only  3  had  an  average  cost 
of  over  $3.20  per  100  pounds.  These  15  factories  produced  37  per  cent 
of  the  total  sugar  produced  in  the  United  States.  The  second  group 
produced  20  per  cent  of  the  total  production.  It  is  thus  seen  that  57 
per  cent  of  all  the  sugar  produced  in  the  United  States  was  made  at 
a  cost  of  not  exceeding  $3.50  per  100  pounds,  excluding  depreciation. 
The  average  cost,  not  including  depreciation,  for  these  two  gi'Qups 
was  slightly  above  $3.15  per  100  pounds. 
87731—17 7 


I 


[I 


86 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


A  particularly  interesting  fact  brought  out  in  the  above  table  is 
the  comparatively  small  percentage  of  the  total  sugar  produced  by  the 
21  factories  having  a  cost  of  over  $4,  not  including  depreciation. 
These  21  factories  made  only  15  per  cent  of  the  total  sugar  produced 
in  the  United  States. 

The  36  factories  having  a  cost  of  less  than  $4  per  100  pounds,  in- 
cluding depreciation,  produced  74  per  cent  of  the  total  production  in 
the  United  States  at  an  average  cost  of  $3.25,  not  including  depre- 
ciation, and  $3.46  including  it.  The  28  factories  having  a  cost  of 
over  $4  per  100  pounds,  including  depreciation,  produced  only  22 
per  cent  of  the  sugar  at  an  average  cost  of  $4.64.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  of  the  28  factories  having  a  cost  of  over  $4  per  100  pounds, 
including  depreciation,  10  are  in  Michigan,  5  in  Colorado,  4  in  Wis- 
consin, 3  in  Ohio,  and  one  each  in  Minnesota,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Ne- 
braska, Arizona,  and  Oregon.  The  factory  operating  in  Oregon  has 
been  removed  to  Idaho. 

By  comparing  the  figures  in  the  table,  it  will  be  observed  that  the 
groups  of  factories  having  the  lowest  cost,  not  including  depreciation, 
also  have  the  lowest  depreciation  per  100  pounds.  Group  4,  which  has 
the  highest  cost,  has  nearly  twice  as  great  a  charge  for  depreciation 
as  group  1,  which  has  the  lowest  cost. 

Section  8.  Comparative  cost  of  production  for  all  factories,  by  years. 

Details  of  cost  of  production  by  factories,  by  years,  are  not  shown 
in  this  report  for  reasons  already  stated  (see  p.  62),  arid  for  the 
further  reason  that  it  was  not  possible  to  arrive  at  a  satisfactory 
basis  to  compute  depreciation  for  some  factories  for  individual  years, 
though  this  could  be  done  by  companies.  It  is  of  some  interest, 
however,  to  show  the  cost  of  producing  100  pounds  of  sugar,  not 
including  depreciation,  for  all  factories  by  years  to  compare  these 
results  with  the  average  cost  for  5  years.  Such  a  comparison  is  made 
in  the  statement  below : 


Year. 


1909-10 

1910-11... 

1911-12 

1912-13 

19ia-14 

Average  for  5  years 

Average  for  4  years,  omitting  1911 


Number 
of 

factories 
operating, 


59 
58 
63 
71 
69 


Cost  of 
beets. 


$2.3432 
2. 4215 
2. 7671 
2.5257 
2.5243 


Net  cost 
of  manu- 
facture, 

not  in- 
cluding 

depre- 
ciation. 


$0.9368 

.9916 

1.0478 

1.0231 

.9039 


Total. 


$3.2800 
3.4131 
3. 8149 
3.5488 
3.4282 


74 
74 


2.5247 
2. 4661 


.9794 
.9629 


3.5041 
3.4290 


/ 


^\ 


/ 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET   SUGAR. 


87 


From  the  foregoing  statement  it  is  seen  that  the  lowest  average 
cost,  not  including  depreciation,  was  $3.28  in  the  campaign  of 
1909-10  and  the  highest  was  $3.81  in  the  campaign  of  1911-12.  As 
already  stated  (see  p.  83)  the  unusually  high  cost  in  the  latter  cam- 
paign was  due  to  the  fact  that  in  the  Lake  States  a  great  many  beets 
bought  and  paid  for  by  the  beet-sugar  companies  spoiled  before  they 
could  be  used.  Consequently,  the  average  cost  of  beets  per  100  pounds 
of  sugar  in  the  United  States  for  that  year  Avas  considerably  higher 
than  usual  and  the  net  cost  of  manufacture,  partially  due  to  the  same 
cause,  was  also  higher.  The  average  net  cost  for  all  factories  for  the 
hye  years,  excluding  depreciation,  was  $3.50,  while  the  average  for 
the  four  years,  omitting  1911,  was  $3.43. 

Section  9.  Cost  of  sugar  manufactured  per  ton  of  beets. 

Costs  in  the  beet-sugar  business  as  well  as  in  most  other  industries 
are  usually  determined  on  the  basis  of  a  unit  of  product.    In  the  case 
of  sugar  the  basis  is  100  pounds.    In  European  countries,  however,  a 
ton  of  beets  worked  is  frequently  considered  the  unit  and  costs  are 
discussed  in  that  relation.    For  the  technique  of  sugar  manufacture 
there  is  considerable  interest  in  the  study  of  costs  on  this  basis.     A 
general  statement  of  the  costs  of  extracting  the  sugar  from  a  ton  of 
beets  has  but  little  real  value  in  a  comparati^  e  study  of  costs.     If 
all  beets  were  of  the  same  quality  such  a  comparison  in  different  fac- 
tories would  afford  a  valuable  guide  in  the  determination  of  factory 
efficiency.     It  rarely  ever  occurs,  however,  that  anv  two  factori^ 
have  beets  of  exactly  the  same  quality.    The  average  cost  of  manu- 
facture per  ton  of  beets,  therefore,  does  not  add  much,  if  anything,  to 
the  knowledge  derived  from  a  study  of  costs  per  100  pounds  of  suo^ar 
produced.  *^ 

Notwithstanding  the  foregoing  facts,  a  statement  of  costs  based 
on  a  ton  of  beets  sliced  is  here  given  as  a  matter  of  interest  and 
because  it  may  be  of  some  use  to  the  sugar  manufacturer.    The  cost 
data  of  the  64  factories  covered  by  Table  14  have  been  compiled  on 
the  basis  of  1  ton  of  beets  sliced  and  the  results  are  shown  in  Table 
22.    The  elements  of  cost  are  classified  as  in  the  cost  table  based  on 
100  pounds  of  sugar,  except  that  depreciation  is  not  considered.    The 
results  are  usually  the  average-for  5  years,  though  a  few  factories 
operating  only  3  or  4  years  have  been  included.    The  column  show- 
ing the  average  number  of  pounds  of  sugar  extracted  from  a  ton  of 
beets  by  each  factory  is  inserted  in  the  table.    By  dividing  the  aver- 
age net  factory  cost  per  ton  of  beets  by  the  average  extraction,  the 
net  cost  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  can  be  found.     This  result  will 
agree  with  the  net  costs  shown  in  Table  14  (see  p.  72).    Multiplying 
the  depreciation  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  shown  in  Table  14  by  the 
extraction  per  ton  of  beets  shown  in  Table  22  will  give  the  amount 
of  depreciation  per  ton  of  beets. 


88 


o 

OQ 

o 
o 

OQ 

o 

m 


s8 


W    -H 

W   OQ 

t^« 

N  <; 

o  ^ 

H>< 

CQ 

o  w 

o  > 

«s 

o 

^H 

«  tt 

w  f^ 

2§ 

Q  Ph 

^2;    . 

-<  to 

w  s 

w  o 

fe  <J 

o  f«* 

Jz;{H 

o  « 

E-« 

« 

H 

PL| 

o 

1-1 

O 

Eh 

Pi 
■< 
O 

QQ 

H 

O 

> 

t 

•J 

PQ 

■< 

E^ 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


MOW 
?4     Q     to 

•H    55    SO 


00     0»     'tft        pi 
t-     O     lA        ^ 

<-"    <-!    rt      05 


S2«^-  <^oio<»;^  :2:^iil  ill!! 


^3KS§5     S;3J52S     r;-oo^oo 

«^^^£3    SoSS^i    i2^§SS    Sl5gf2g 


S  "'  ^  ^  -: 


Oi-lOOi-l       ooo 


I      I      I      I 


;s 


S    S  S  g 


OOO 


S  I  §  s  s  ^ 

05      OS      1^      tH      OS         C» 


00     N 

o  o 


Ilia 


bS- 


(55^3 


i2 

$ 

C 

T3'-^ 

»«  «iS 

ft+J-O 

c35+3  S 

ge 

>  o 


H2i!n  111^^  iiS^S  ii§S§ 

^  ^   S   ::i   ^     osoooo.     oosooo     oS^Joooi 


=  §  §  ^ 

•"•      to      CO         r-t 


i^  fe    2  S  S 


»o 


to     1-1 


W      —       3  OOl-1-Hi.H 


S'^il  §§iii  mi 


i  i  i  ^  s 

CO    CO    cvi    lo    1-^ 


I 


S   S     M   ^    -^ 


!  ^  3  i    i  i  2  §  i    i  i  i  ,S  §    I  g  g  g  3 

*""  f-H  


pil§  iiis§  5im|g|.. 


§Si2i  §S2fe8  isg^B   iiis^ 


00     Ol 


SKSg§j:    S:3Sgi5    ooo»o»c 
«s^§3oo   S;3g^5;   ssssgis 


«       O    •*•    OS    1-1    -♦< 


s 


^  ^^pi^?i  s?a^gs 


s  »  S3  - 


si^Si  i§SBi  §5S2g  ssisg 


s 


3 


r>-    CO    N 

$  S  !S: 


CO    'v    lo 


«o 


SO   eo    OS 
_„     l^     b-    t^ 

^     O     US     iC 


S  S  S  8 

lO     M5     ■?!<     U5 


iisi^  Sf2^5.5  asgQoo  W-.N 

*52^:]    '^'^^^^    3j;p|;*3    ggg 

J^t^oot^,^      t^t^t^t^O      r>:r>:t^t^r^      r^^^ 


t^  t>.  t^    t^  00  1^: 


r>.    h- 


li     Jl*     00     UJ     C^»        M 

•5    ?i    cs    55    CO      Si 
c^   CM    1-1    R   54     5i 


sg^  §iigi  iiagg 


Y 


\ 


/ 


•  \ 


i  .f-^k 


«-•     C«     CO     ^     lO 


r     r*    ,  ■•  /        '  .     •        •        •  .        ,        ', 

' !     '    .  *     ' 


friH 


•     ,  •       •       >  ' 

•    •    I    ,     "■ 

>  o  r«:  00  2  n  s^':;?  2:  s  g  si-s.  ;?i,s  S.w(^.^f,  ^^.^ 


< 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET  SUGAB. 

sssss  sssss^;  gsssa  ^^5«|  sSssI  SSSii 

oO'^P-oJh     wosi-HOCt     i-ioo»o»-i     c»eo««ooo     t*rHcot>.oo     e«5>-ii-<«oec 
osoosooi^     osddosoo     oo^ooooos     ososoodos     os«^dr^t»     t^»oooooo 

iH  i-l  r-l     i-l  rt  »H     1-1 


<©•■<#   Qt>-     ost^t^coa     £2^19522     SSJErlfSS! 

SSif:    ^SSJSS    i:§feS^    SSS^^ 


e^  o  «  csi  r^  uo  o 
r^  o  OS  o  OS  »  -H 
00    N    r^    ^    ^      lO    o 


T»t     CO 

o    e«5 


to   eo   o   "^sPi 

8  2  &  S  S 


t^e«^      eo«o»o»H?o     cpoor-'-!      wt-os'^it^      tf)i-ioepN 

S88  isiss  iisss   8S^SS  ssssb 


I    I    I    I 


I     I 


I    I    I    I 


OS 


^     ^     PO       O    1^     ^ 

s  i  i  ss  s  51 


o 


li    o 
S   ?o 


<©       5P0PtrC^eS       ■*eOOO;CO       CiOSOO*-*"} 

u5     ^osooo     t>-osesr^«p     n    tfi   oi   c<*    <o 
Tp     «c'*t>->oco     ooooe^i'^^     »co-^oc< 


»H  o»t*'*'*e5  oeOF-(-*N  aspirissx  CsSi-i-Ptr  XCOCjeo 
t^  asOfHtnco  towS^OM  a9c6^t>.ko  cooqi-^9os  ^o>ooqi-i 
S     SS^WOT     ao^^-i-teo     F.5o»osi-i     «5w5-<!f(NS     ost^»oe5t^ 


8  2 

r»    1-1 


oi-iooscM     o<-ioasoo     ooosooosos     ososoooo     o^^i-ioooo     r^oooosoo 


o   t-   o  c« 

^  2  3  g 


ei   OS   00   t* 
1-1    »o    r-   |5 

1-1     i-(      r^      O 


CO 


CO     eoMi-ieoi-t      •<<»«t»'-i 


CO  O  OS  o 
--  t-  IQ  <0 
M  M  C»  CO 


CO 

CO 


s 


00  f-i  eo  «o 
1-1  OS  CM  t^ 
CM   i-l  CM  r-l 


CM 


^ 


O 


t^    r-l  00  C* 

St»  OS  Q 
lO  t^  o  »o  »c 


s 


OS  1-1 


O   £j 

So 


•*  CO 

t>.  CO 
00  t- 


•r!S0ooos      cot^eoioao 

OSCMOO       '^fl»C4o5i-< 

«-i«5-^co     co^ic-^'* 


t^-MOOeOCO       t-Hi-iOOOCM 

t^oor^>c>o      t-iososCMO 
?oo5i~-t^i-i     oot>.i>»t>.»o 


ujooo      ^oft'^i^CM 


CO'<t«OSQu;       tHOO'^OOOO       CQ 
C01OU3N00       lOOiOCMcO       CO 


a   S     iS  S   §   ^   * 

CO    CO      ^    ^ 


t>»   »o 


o   o     CM    r^   1-1   CO   o 
„_-oS      «eot»e>55 

i-IO«0»0       ■^t—    C0»0!0 


^ 


5JsS2^  ggsss  ssssg   SSgss  ^i§§S  ^ii 

i-ii-(i-IOeO       i-lc5r^i-lO       ,M-^^4^^i^        i-i»*<iM»-<^H        WCMW^Hi-i        1-IOO 


CO    ^ 

CO   ^ 


CM«o     ea^sSSr^y     '•JSP 

£m^  i.^isi  s?^^ 


©•Oi-ico     '*i-ieM'«J«»o     ■^couocc 
eo    Si    ^    eo      SSwSS      CMcoSeo 


t^^oo$      eoSi-iS«o      uSeo^^S      aSSs 
»-"i-<ooi-i     .-leocMi-ii-t     i-icM'Hi-teM     e«e*«-» 


CO     O     <D     CM     ^H        ^H 
^     CO     3     CM     00       « 

e«  c5  •-•  CO  CM     N 


UJOOCO'^IO       CMT»«0^t>. 
^e900»0       i-HCMt^QOS 


00 


^ 


eo    00      ^    00    ^   w    eo 


c<it>.i_i'^oo  o>   to   a   -^   r-{  sofc-rtcovs  t-oyjO'^  ^icf'^i-t  cot-oo'** 

CO^COiO^  ^pSg^ui  (§o$9«^co  ^S^^^  fiS*4^S  ^CM^SoO 

eotccou5i-<  o^a5<9c4  ra^CM^us  to   ^   ci   eo   tS  oor-eo^  i-ioioooio 

t>^t^i>ti^t>^  i>cd<d<od  eo«d«Dcod  «d«o«doo  <o<oioto>o  los^tototo 


CM««i-ICi        eOCMC4CM 


55 


eo   «o   ;«    ^   CO     go 
55  R  cS  el  cJ     8  m 


O     CO     I-l     U3        SO     t5 


CO 


Hi    ui      eo    so    sp    t- 

C4     CM        CM     C«    (K     CM 


■            t                 t*«ii  «••••  •*•! 

•     •       ••••»  ••••«  fill 

II       ••••1  •••••  ••II 

Ilk        IIIVV  lllll  llll 

I      k      ■•'•      I      I      1  11      I      ^      I  I      •      I      • 

iii'i'iia*  lllll  III! 

I'ah'i'^lll  •••••  llll 


^N^SS     Sweoroco     feeoW§5     rr5?5«5'*     ^?pS"3«o     «ou5»cS«o 


•s 


o 
e 

s 

C3 


a 


00  Qt^^i-(OS  •^'-•W'^a      "^QcSt-ioo  2J-^i©so^  S 

"3  ^cM«OkocM  eouaeccooo'rfS'a"*''^  «£SSrJ*  P 

T-l  T_|r-ii-ii-iiH  -^iHi-ieOi-l        COC^^rHi-<  ^CMNCMt-f  J- 

a  ••«••  •»•••        ■••■•  ••••• 


gi    S83SS    I 


CO 


c 
a 


o 

CO 

cc 


00 

1 

£ 


m 

O 


OS 

s 

el 

•5 


cMco     52'~'SS'^°S     35'^SS*     ^"^iSSS^     3 
coco     58S«3^     SSso^'*     »c«»ososo     "o 


i 

CQ 

^^ 

c 
S 
< 


89 


\ 


90 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 


COST  OF  PRODUCING  BEET  SUGAB. 


91 


A 

QQ 
CO 

m 

A 

o 
o 

H 

c 

OD 
fa 

Si 


O 
&^ 

o 
o 


> 


> 

Q 

GO 
» 

m 
o 


Pi 
o 

CO 

« 

o 

Eh 

O 

P=4 


o  « 

Jz: 

o 
t-t 

Eh  . 

X 

« 

o 
t) 

>   OQ 

O 

-< 

> 

S3 

pa 

-< 


'     eo    M    (M    OS    N 


r^  -tJ  ^J~  3  p. 
^  O  ST! 


O 


^  o  axj  — ' 
^5      '^ 


O     «0     00       W     •H     »^ 


3_r      zj:      *^      "rf      ^^         ••  "^     ^r*      "^      •*?     '■'W         c^     ^^     t^ 

r^aooJoooJ     ooosoJoo     oioscSeo 


09 

O 


r?  t"  "5  t^  '^ 

O  C^  t^  o  -^ 

>0  CC  iC  ^  (M 

c5  ■  •  •  ■ 


P     »C 

55    in 


^     (N     ■<<< 
t^     lO     Oi 

00     lO     1-t 


00    o 
CD     t^ 


00     lO 

i-H      OS 


«;  =  °  S!!i 
S  o  M  gii- 

.2  2  S  M  ® 

TS   03— <0 


;^ 


oococ      ooo-^o 


o 


■*^    O    S    L- 


00       05     t^ 


Ot>.00rftOt--.00C<l 

■2:3'2;:325      c^ecujoOfO      ooc^ 


00    >o 
era    o 


w  is  *j 


o 


03 


■  "^  -.  ^ 


o 

CO 


S  =3  c3 


C  >j  o  « 


be 

o 


03  2  =3  ^ 

S«     2 


CO 


fc,   q    M 

•-.  en  2 


03 


9 
S 


fc<  ®  w 

III 


OQ- 


O 


h 


OS     OS     OS     O 


OSi— ii— (1— (O        OOSO'** 


i5S?*:2;s;;    S!2;s«^*    os-^osi-h 

O— lOOO       i-hOSi-hOO       O^S'^ 


o 


OS 


2}    OS 

O     (N 


qsiMoesi      eo-^eoM 


lo    N    OS  _ 


rot^osoo»o      osoor^ 
^owcir^      050SO 


OS   -H  t^  ■.!<  (M 

<5   O  »C  t^  00 
O   U3  r-l  ec  CO 


o 


uj  a  UO  00  <M   00 

3  o  e^  CO  h-  (M 

CO  lo  ^  "^  OS   »■-» 


s 


(M   00 

«0   CO 


OS  O) 

CO  CO 
OS   OS 


^  OS  O  t- 


OS   M  X  Cp  lO  «t5 
M   h-  00  OS  U5  OS 


op  o  o  -^ 


O-^Q0«f4   h-^06^u5Os   ?i?5'->^ 

1— II— iriO'-'   •-''-ii-ieoci   i-i— hc^cj 


— J   ^H   Tf   OS   00 

O  — <  t--  O  l-~ 

CO  CO  <M   00  CO 


OOOO'^COCJ         OOCOOOCl 


CO  -H  00  (M 
■<4«  O  OS  00 
1-1      <-l      — I      CO 


M-HOCSkO        Tft^osoO 
»or-i— i»^>C      ^pOst-co 


s 


CO  r^  M  ■»»«  .^ 
•-<  o  o  o  •* 
•*  00  -^  to  ■^ 


5  ^ 


.  c^  3  j§ 

t^  O  00  CO 


00  CO  00 

OS   CO  " 
"3  CO  t^ 


o 


t^  00  -<  (M  -^ 
•^  »0  CO  00  o 
00  t^  t^  CO  »o 


eo—iooc^oo      CO'*'— <oo 

ri'>*<0O'J"00       '^     so     -^     ia 


u 


■A     CO     O     to 


to    — '    !-•    eo    <— I 
o    CO    t>^    CO    r-^ 


J2 


OS    '^^    00 
CO    CO    to    t>^ 


OS    Tj«    e<5    ^    O 
to    r-    c^    o    00 

(N    C«    M     00    eo 


CI     t^     OS     to     CO        OS     o 

S5   S   iS   2   3J     00   o 
N   e^   N   CO   e<5     ot   n 


n    00 

OS     •* 


sssss  ^ssss 


P     .H      00 

r^   t^   t- 


o 
<s 

"3 


-4-3 

G 
o 


kl 


1^ 

o 

CQ 

s 

o 

e 

u 

3 

-o 

(» 

-a 


S3 

3 
O 
o5 


O 

■      1 


O 


0 
03 
CO 

« 

-3 
S 

o 
o 

EC 


be 


T' 


'4] 


r 


\ 


/ 


I 


\ 


The  results  shown  in  the  foregoing  table  run  exactly  parallel  with 
those  already  shown  in  Table  14  (see  p.  72),  and  the  discussion  of 
that  table  will  apply  here.  It  is  of  some  interest,  however,  to  con- 
sider a  few  significant  facts  brought  out  in  the  above  table. 

The  average  extraction  of  sugar  per  ton  of  beets  ranges  from  about 
200  to  more  than  300  pounds.  The  average  for  the  64  factories 
operating  during  the  five-year  period  covered  was  265  pounds.  It 
will  be  observed  that  there  is  no  fixed  relation  between  the  quantity 
of  sugar  extracted  and  the  various  elements  of  cost  per  ton  of  beets. 
The  lowest  cost  for  operating  labor  was  48  cents  in  factories  num- 
bered 3  and  39,  with  a  sugar  extraction  per  ton  of  beets  of  198 
pounds  and  238  pounds,  respectively.  The  highest  cost  of  labor 
was  $1.43  in  factory  No.  48,  which  had  an  extraction  of  210  pounds 
or  28  pounds  less  than  factory  No.  39.  Factory  No.  69,  with  an  ex- 
traction of  346  pounds,  had  a  labor  cost  of  approximately  70  cents 
per  ton  of  beets,  while  factory  No.  71  with  46  pounds  less  extractioA 
had  a  labor  cost  of  nearly  $1.16  per  ton  of  beets.  Similar  compari- 
sons can  be  made  with  other  elements  of  cost. 

Another  notable  fact  brought  out  in  the  table  is  that  among  the 
factories  having  the  lowest  sugar  extraction  is  often  found  the  high- 
est cost  of  beets.  The  expenditures  for  beets  shown  in  the  table  are 
the  actual  cost  per  ton  laid  down  at  the  factory.  Only  2  factories 
of  the  64  paid  as  much  as  $8  per  ton  for  beets,  and  with  one  exception 
these  2  factories  had  the  lowest  extraction.  The  extremely  high 
cost  of  beets  in  these  two  instances  was  not  due  to  a  high  price  paid 
the  farmer  for  beets  but  to  extraordinarily  high  expenses  in  procur- 
ing beets  and  having  them  delivered  at  the  factory,  and  to  losses 
from  the  spoiling  of  beets. 


?  aw^TAit^Lstzaiegyasat^ ,« 


Jllli 


#  t  w 


'!«'  xaorj 


II  II  wo  I 


'.•  m;  I 


>■? 


CHAPTER  IV. 
DISTEIBTTTiaN  OF  SUGAR. 


J  us 


-  .  UJ    UUl' 


■iM>;   'to 


Section  1.  Introduction. 

The  product  of  the  beet-sugar  factories  is  all  granulated  sugar 
ready  for  table  use.  The  factories  located  in  the  West  pack  their 
product  in  bags  containing  100  pounds  each.  Some  of  the  sugar 
produced  in  the  eastern  factories  is  packed  in  this  manner,  but  most 
of  It  is  packed  in  barrels  which  contain  about  340  pounds  each.  Some 
is  also  sold  in  bales,  a  bale  containing  four  25-pound  bags  packed  in 
this  manner  for  the  convenience  of  the  trade.  Practically  aU  of  the 
product  is  sold  through  jobbers,  a  small  quantity  being  sold  directly 
to  the  beet  growers  for  their  own  use.  One  or  two  companies  also 
dispose  of  their  product  to  near-by  cane  refineries. 

Section  2.  Where  beet  sn^r  is  consumed. 

Data  showing  the  quantity  of  sugar  sold  in  each  State  by  factories 
were  secured  from  the  majority  of  the  companies.  In  some  cases  this 
information  was  not  available,  and  in  others,  due  to  the  amount  of 
work  involved,  it  was  not  obtained.  Such  information  was  secured 
from  29  of  the  37  companies  which  in  1913  sold  1,006,884,238  pounds. 
The  great  bulk  of  the  total  sales  is  thus  accounted  for,  as  the  sales  of 
the  largest  companies  are  included.  In  1912  information  was  secured 
from  only  24  companies,  which  sold  1,039,789,058  pounds.  The  fol- 
lowing table  shows  the  quantity  and  per  cent  sold  in  each  State  by 
these  companies  for  these  two  years: 

Table  23— BEET  SUGAR  SOLD  BY  24  COMPANIES  IN  THE  VARIOUS  STATES  FOR 

THE  YEAR  1912  AND  29  COMPANIES  IN  1913. 


State. 


1912 


Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

CalifomiaJ 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

District  of  Columbia, 


Pounds. 


1,855,500 

6,671,000 

14,670,900 

80,788,000 

39,680,300 

440,936 

161, 741 

2,337,434 


Per  cent. 


.18 

.64 

1.41 

7.77 

3.82 

.04 

.02 

.22 


1913 


Pounds. 


528,500 

9,739,400 

17,098,294 

93,254,700 

24,656,400 


Per  cent. 


.05 

.97 

1.70 

9.26 

2.45 


649,947 


.06 


92 


» Includes  the  sugar  sold  by  the  Alameda  Sugar  Co.  in  Oregon  and  Washington, 


T 


/ 


«  I  « 


> 


\ 


DISTBIBXJTION  OF  STJGAB, 


^8 


T  „,  oo      BEET  SUGAR  SOLD  BY  24  COMPANIES  IN  THE  VARIOUS  STATES  FOR 
T.B.»  2S-BEET  I^^B  SOLD^^  ^^  COMPANIES  IN  1913-Contln»ed. 


State. 


[1/ 


Florida 

Georgia 

Idaho - 

Illinois -  -  — ' 

Indiana • 

Iowa • 

Kansas -' 

Kentucky 

Louisiana •  — 

Maryland 

Massachusetts,  .il  1  i  JJ^J^  :i  i  ^ 


1912 


Pounds.      I  Per  cent 


..Tt; 


■■•'V- 


f »'« ' ' 


't ; '  1 


r  ......  . 


..iiiiU^i 


Michigan — 
Minnesota... 
Mississippi . . 

Missouri 

Montana  — 
Nebraska . . . 

Nevada 

New  Jersey . 
New  Mexico 

New  York 

North  Carolina. 
North  Dakota  i 

Ohio.... 

Oklahoma 

Oregon .IJ 

Pennsylvania . 
Rhode  Island . . 
South  Carolina 

South  Dakota I 

Tennessee. ... ^ .;.  ^ . .  -.v  j  u  *  :"4  ii'i^-f-  -  •fc*-- 

Texas.... ...........^-.•.--•Tf^-^^fv^-* 

Utah •.••.-•:"•» 

Vertoont.li..'- J 

Virginia 

Washington.. .  .,4^.  .,j,r  |.-  •  vr.-";i 
West  Virginia ■ 

Wis6Wian..;....i....i- 


::i 


.J   ?.. 


900.600 
5,024,700 
5,395,900 
121,505,253  i 
17,832.464 
86,129,227 
45,977,800 
10,903,317 
893,500 
11,033,973 
253,163 
24,643,246 
82,306,186 
1,553,400 
95,132,839 
23,661,600 
56,324,791 
350,900 
2,215,215 
6,906,400 
23,618.336 
1,831,000 
21,147,972 
31,116,651 
38,125,700 
5,991,800 
$6,682,927 
300,239 
1,743,S00 
20,485.573 
10,971,1^ 
36,321,900 
22,185,100 
444,449 
8,303,074 
8,359,000 
3,426,046 
Ji  ;;iikU .  Wi.  JJiUl^. -fP  ^^  *  ■  19, 843, 92S 


"fi',>  •..:  .7,  Mi  j  ]':'••>  -iflOJi 


'iif^m.ML 


-  )  »i:j.H' 


Wyoming.. .... i,...».KO^^•*♦^ki•■«^>4H•^•^4••^^^• 


>i  i    <i   >.•  I  «•> 


:t I !•*  > 


3,760,100 


.09 
.48 
.52 
11.69 
1.72 
8.28 
4.42 
1.05 
.09 
1.06 
.02 
3.37 
7.92 
.15 
9.15 
2.27 
5.42 
.03 
.11 
.66 
2.27 
.18 
2.03 
2.99 
3.67 
.54 
8.53 
.03 
.17 
1.97 
1.06 
3.49 
2.13 
.04 
.80 
.80 
.33 
1.91 
.36 


1,099,789,058 


100.00 


1913 


Pounds. 


239,500 

2,648,700 

6,493,800 

98,555,963 

17,289,666 

75,532,098 

50,110,777 

12,147,»18 

701,000 

3,112,454 


Percent. 


.02 

.26 

.64 

9.79 

1.72 

7.60 

4.98 

1.21 

.07 

.81 


50,481,976 
89,864,364 
501,200 
96,635,911 
11,079,700 
56,466,300 
510,000 
65,000 
6,668,900 
13,675,932 
363,900 
7,936,549 
57,066,671 
51,904,000 
4,089,300 
19,310,482 


300,000 

17.377,918 

6,l28,a'0 

32,427,200 

i4, 671, 500 

113,000 

5,536,093 

6,502,300 

2,063,234 

29,998,166 

2,704,700 


5.01 

8.92 
.05 
9.59 
1.10 
5.61 
.05 
.01 
.66 
1.36 
.04 
.79 
ft.  66 
5.15 
.40 
1.91 


.03 

1.73 

.61 

3.22 

2.45 

.01 

.55 

.65 

.20 

3.f7 

.28 


1,006,884,238  \        100.00 


1  Includes  the  sugar  sold  by  the  HoUy  Sugar  Co*  in  South  Dakota. 

From  the  above  table  it  is  seen  that  beet  sugar  is  sold  in  nearly 
every  State  in  the  Union.  CaUfornia,  Illinois,  Iowa,  Michigan, 
Minnesota,  Missouri,  Nebraska,  Ohio,  and  Oklahoma  received  the 
largest  quantities  of  beet  sugar,  66  per  cent  of  the  amount  shown 
in  the  table,  for  1913,  being  sold  in  these  States.  It  is  probable 
that  a  larger  proportion  of  the  product  was  sold  m  California 


i 


-M 


.iTSTxri^ 


^7^ 


94 


THE  BEET   SUGAR  INDUSTRY   IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 


DISTRIBUTION   OF  SUGAR. 


95 


than  is  shown  above,  as  the  table  does  not  include  the  product  of 
a  large  company  which  sold  its  entire  product  to  a  cane  refinery 
which  in  turn  disposes  of  a  large  part  of  its  product  in  this  State. 
In  1912  more  than  50,000,000  pounds  was  sold  in  each  of  the  States 
of  California,  Illinois,  Iowa,  Minnesota,  Missouri,  and  Nebraska, 
50  per  cent  of  the  quantity  shown  in  the  table  being  sold  in  these 
six  States.     No  doubt  more  than  50,000,000  pounds  was  sold  also 
in   Michigan,   as   the   table   does  not   include   the   product   of   the 
Michigan  Sugar  Co.    Small  companies  can  usually  dispose  of  their 
product  either  locally  or  in  near-by  States,  but  the  largest  com- 
panies must  of  necessity  find  markets  in  various  States.    The  com- 
panies in  Utah,  Idaho,   and   Colorado  are   forced   to   invade   the " 
eastern  markets,  since  their  production  far  exceeds  the  home  de- 
mand  and  because  California   produces  large  quantities   of  both 
beet  and  cane  sugar  and  largely  supplies  the  Pacific  coast  markets. 
The  Great  Western  Sugar  Co.  in  1*913,  for  example,  sold  sugar  in 
33  different  States.    Of  course  the  bulk  of  their  product  was  sold 
in  the  central  Western  States,  but  small  quantities  were  sold  even 
as  far  east  as  Vermont,  New   York,   New   Jersey,   and   Virginia. 
Only  small  quantities  are  sold  in  the  Southern  States  for  the  reason 
that  the  Louisiana  cane  refineries  have  the  advantage  of  lower 
freight  rates. 

Section  3.  Cost  of  distribution. 

In  this  discussion  all  expense  incident  to  selling  except  a  small 
amount  for  administration  and  for  insurance  of  sugar  in  warehouses 
at  the  factories  has  been  charged  to  cost  of  distribution.  As  already 
explained  (see  p.  61)  the  two  latter  items  could  not  be  separated  from 
other  administrative  expense  and  from  insurance  on  plant  and 
equipment  and  therefore  they  have  been  charged  against  cost  of  pro- 
duction. Since  each  company  sells  the  product  of  all  its  factories  as 
one  unit  only  averages  for  companies  can  be  shown.  The  average 
brokerage  commission  and  freight  per  100  pounds  are  shown  sepa- 
rately, and  the  other  items  of  cost,  such  as  insurance,  storage  allow- 
ances, and  cash  discounts,  are  included  under  the  head  of  other  ex- 
pense. The  average  price  received  per  100  pounds,  the  average  net 
price  at  the  factory,  and  the  principal  items  making  up  the  selling 
expense  are  shown  in  Table  24  below: 


^ 


s 


/ 


> 


A 


~  o^       <-.ur>ao  niT'Ti'TPTS  PER  100  POCNDS  OP  BEET   SUGAR,   SELLING  EX- 

"^'lENs'ET^rNl/SfAT'^TcTOKY  PER  100  POONDS,  BY  COMPANIES,  FOR 
THE  YEARS  1909-10  TO  1913-14,  INCLUSIVE. 

1909-10. 


Gross 
receipts. 

Selling  expense. 

Company. 

Broker- 
age and 
commis- 
sion. 

Freight. 

other 
expense.  , 

.  Total 

selling 

expense. 

Net  price 
at  fac- 
tory. 

1                          

$5.0866 
4.9702 
5.0431 
5.0587 
4.9632 

4.7655 

$0.0309 
.0589 
.0299 
.0300 
.0207 

.0846 

$0. 4424 
.1410 
.2946 
.0919 
.0872 

.1249 

$0.0818 
.0543 
.0599 
.0790 
.0582 

.0476 

$0.5551 
.2542 
.3844 
.2009 
.1661 

.2571 

$4. 5315 

9                                       

4.7160 

o                                       

4.65S7 

4                              

4.857S 

R                                                                

4.7971 

6 

4.5084 

7 

o                                            

5. 7104 
5.0393 
4.9360 

4.9959 

.0808 
.0288 
.0173 

.0959 

.6784 
.5576 
.3542 

.1437 

.2334 
.0432 
.0585 

.0549 

.9926 
.6296 
.4300 

.2945 

4.7178 

q                            

4.4097 

1ft                                                                 

4.5060 

11 

4.7014 

12 

4. 8787 

.0062 

.0865 

.0927 

4.7S60 

13 

14 

ir^                                                           ........•■••••• 

4.8393 

5. 0155 
5.1906 
5.0032 
5.0864 
4.9985 

.0289 

.0281 
.0417 
.0319 
.0335 
.0324 

.0989 

.1208 
.0677 
.0876 
.0814 
.0553 

.1278 

.2826 
.5616 
.2556 
.3434 
.2295 

4.7115 

10 

ifi                                     

.1337 
.4522 
.1361 
.2285 
.1418 

4.7329 

17                                

4.6290 

1G                                         

4.7476 

1Q                                         

4.7430 

Oft                                ....; 

4.7690 

21 

22 

5.8809 

.1342 

.4273 

.0253 

.5868 

5.2941 

23 

94                                       

5. 1752 
4.9740 

5.2217 
5.0550 
4.9921 
5. 1590 
4.9344 

.       5.0171 

.0360 
.0283 

.0330 
.0260 
.0801 
.0302 
.0281 

.0361 

.4421 
.0722 

.4153 
.0961 
.1202 
.2771 
.0677 

.0867 

.0552 
.1397 

.1002 
.0816 
.1057 
.0362 
.0534 

.0681 

.5333 
.2402 

.5485 
.2037 
.3060 
.3435 
.1492 

.1909 

4.6419 

or.                                  

4.7338 

Oft                                       

4.6732 

97                                           

4.8513 

9fl                                  

4.68M 

90                                  

4.8155 

OA                                    

4.7852 

31 

4.S262 

32 

33 

.       4.9652 

.0245 

.1317 

.0521 

.2083 

4.7500 

34 

35 

Oft                                                             

5.2221 

.       4.9134 
.       5.3229 

.0298 

.0321 
.0311 

.0683 

.0960 
.  4130 

.0050 

.0980 
.0841 

.1031 

.2261 
.5282 

5.1190 

4.6873 

07                             

4.7947 

.'.^..•Mn-fifK    .. 


bl 


96 


THE  BEET  SUGAE  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Tablb  24.— gross  RECEIPTS  PER  100  POUNDS  OP  BEET  gUGAB,  SELLING  EX- 
PENSE AND  NET  PRICE  AT  FACTORY  PER  100  POUNDS,  BY  COMPANIES,  FOR 
THE  YEARS  1909-10  TO  1913-14,  INCLUSIVE — Continued. 


1/i.i '■ 


1910-11. 


■    •■-    "  -    --^-----■v __ , ■!           ■                   » 

Gross 
receipts. 

Selling  expense. 

Company. 

Broker- 
ftgeand 
commis- 
sion. 

Freight. 

Other 
expense. 

Total 

selling 

expense. 

Netprioe 
atfito- 
tory. 

1 

$6.0609 
4.6798 
5.1366 
4.7463 
4.9414 

4.3709 

$0.0301 
.0571 
.0310 
.0244 
.0268 

.0265 

$0.4603 
.1442 
.2836 
.1333 
.0982 

.1241 

$0. 0881 
.0989 
.0657 
.0736 
.0614 

.0391 

$0.5785 
.3002 
.3803 
.2313 
.1864 

.1897 

$4.4824 

2 ^ 

4.3796 

8 

4.7563 

4 

4. 5150 

5 

4.7550 

6 

4. 1812 

7                                                           ... 

8 

5. 2407 
4. 8116 
5. 1102 

4.6738 

.0201 
.0310 
.0074 

.0880 

.2036 
.0922 
.1791 

.1482 

.1286 
.1118 
.0639 

.0741 

.3523 
.2350 
.2504 

.3112 

4.8884 

9 

4.5766 

10 

4.85(98 

11 

4.3626 

12                                                 

13               

4.6145 

.0128 

1.0009 

.0119 

4.6026 

14 

" 

16 

5.0019 

4. 6174 
5.2523 
4.6453 
5. 1818 
4.6538 

.0474 

.0333 
.0377 
.0310 
.0337 
.0491 

.1913 

.0321 
.0694 
.0917 
.1013 
.0822 

.2387 

.1937 
.5624 
•      .2621 
.4143 
.2762 

4.7632 

16 

.1283 
.4553 
.1394 
.2793 
,1449 

4.4237 

17 

4.6899 

18 

4.3832 

19    

4. 7675 

20 - 

4. 3776 

21                                                              

22 

5.9262 

.1342 

.4273 

.0253 

.5868 

5.3394 

9a 

24 

5.1788 
4.6891 

5. 2713 
4.7763 
4.6506 
5.1411 
5.0409 

4.7623 

.0359 
.0309 

.0338 
.0284 
.0800 
.0299 
.0536 

.0351 

.4496 
.0734 

.4021 
»      .0865 
.1207 
.3525 
.0916 

.1075 

.0509 
.1971 

.1005 
.0946 
.0967 
.0509 
.1339 

.0693 

.5364 
.3014 

.5364 
.2095 
.2974 
.4333 
.2790 

.2119 

4.6424 

25               ... 

4. 3877 

20 

4. 7349 

27 

4.5668 

28 

4.3532 

29 

4.7078 

ao 

4.7619 

»1 

4.5604 

M 

S8 

4.7340 

.0310 

.0910 


.0632 

.1852 

4.5488 

34                                                          

35.                  .            4 

5.0634 

4.7182 
5.3339 

.0344 

.0273 
.0367 

.2709 

.0841 
.4621 

.0094 

.0938 
.1120 

.3147 

.2052 
.6108 

4.7487 

36 

4.5130 

37.             

4.7231 

>  Credit  from  insurance  fund. 


) 


T^ 


1 


V 


'\ 


) 


\ 


DISTRIBUTION   OP  SUGAE. 


97 


TABLE  24.-GROSS  RECEIPTS.  PER  100  POUNDS  ^^  BBOT  SUGAA,  SB^^^^^^ 

PENSB  AND  NET  PRICE  AT  FACTORY  PER  100  POUNDS,  BY  COMPANIES,  FOR 
THE  YEARS  1909-10  TO  1913-14,  INCLUSIVE-^ontinued. 

i9ii-ie. 


Selling  expense. 


Company. 


Gross 
receipts. 


1 1  $5.3859 

2 j  5w6275 

3 5.5033 

4  ""          /_  5.6959 

K                                                            5.5840 

6 '  5.6246 


Broker- 
age and 
commis- 
sion. 


Freight. 


g !  5.4358 

9 :  4.8627 

10 j  4.9181 

11 5.7955 


10.0298 
.0483 
.0805 
.0255 
.0252 

.0411 


12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 


16... 

17... 

18.. 

19.. 

20.. 


21. 
22. 
23. 
24. 
25. 


5.1211 
5.6369 
4.6912 

5.7569 
5.5045 
5.7338 
5.4817 
5.8003 

'6.7545 
5.6984 


.0710 
.0293 
.0152 

.1104 


$0.4471 
.1862 
.2884 
.1454 
.0944 

.1386 


Other 
expense. 


.8121 
.1067 
.2889 

.1564 


$0.1202 
.1065 
.1131 
.1139 
.0904 

.1160 


Total 

selling 

expense. 


$0.5971 
.3410 
.4320 
.2848 
.2100 

.2957 


Net  price 
at  fac- 
tory. 


$4.7888 
5.2865 
5.071S 
5.4111 
5.3740 

5.3289 


.0021 
.0320 
.0126 

.0565 
.0376 
.0322 
.0301 
.0534 


.0881 


26. 
27. 
28. 
29. 
30. 

31. 
32. 
33. 
34. 
35. 

36. 
37. 


5.3815 
5.6150 

5.4163 
5.7402 
5.8096 
5.5741 
4.9979 

5.8611 


.0352 
.0308 

.0314 
.0325 

.0888 
.0313 
.0268 

.0303 


.0436 
.3904 
.0266 

.1063 
.5612 
.1440 
.2496 
.1712 


.2584 
.1267 
.1153 

.1244 


1.1415 
.1727 
.4194 

.3912 


.3694 


.1130 
.0679 
.0910 

.1851 
.1186 
.1408 
.1022 
.1198 


.1958 


5.2869  ' 
4.5138 


.0354 


5.6542 
5.9035 


.0600 

.0242 
.0375 


.4433 
.1363 

.3919 
.0806 
.1893 
.4043 
.1702 

.0900 


1257 


.0569 

.0975 
.4782 


.1085 
.1751 

.0928 
.1480 
.1378 
.0997 
.1324 

.1368 


,1587 
.4903 
.1302 

.3479 
.7174 
.3170 
.3819 
.3444 

.9971 
.6033 


1073 


.0125 

.1711 
.1782 


.5870 
.3422 

.5161 
.26U 
.4150 
.5353 
.3294 

.2571 


.268i 


.1294 

.2928 
.6939 


4.294S 
4.6900 
4.4987 

5.4013 


4.9634 
5.1466 
4.5610 

5.4090 
4.7871 
5.4168 
5.0998 
5.4559 

5.7574 
5.0051 


4.7945 
5.2728 

4.9002 
5.4791 
5.3937 
5.0388 
4.6685 

5.6040 


5.0185 


4.3844 

5.3614 
5.2096 


1 


!i 


98 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 


DISTRIBUTION   OF   SUGAR, 


99 


Table  24.— GROSS  RECEIPTS  PER  100  POUNDS  OF  BEET  SUGAR,  SELLING  EX- 
PENSE AND  NET  PRICE  AT  FACTORY  PER  100  POUNDS,  BY  COMPANIES,  FOR 
THE  YEARS  1909-10  TO  1913-14,  INCLUSIVE — Continued. 

1912-13. 


Gross 
receipts. 

Selling  expense. 

Company. 

Broker- 
age and 
commis- 
sion. 

Freight. 

Other 
expense. 

Total 

selling 

expense. 

Net  price 
at  fac- 
tory. 

1                

$4.8953 
4.7757 
4.9695 
4.7306 
5.0347 

4.5393 
4.6682 
5.1925 
4.9923 
5. 1708 

4.6497 
4.4901 
4.5460 
5.1434 
5.1531 

4.7784 
5.2337 
4.6225 
5.3650 
4.6582 

5.7543 
5.9856 
4.7063 
5.2835 
4.7331 

5.3196 
4.8257 
4.7148 
4.8241 
5.1864 

4.7623 
4.9411 
4.7859 
4.9747 
4.4670 

4.7501 
5.1858 

$0.0299 
.0899 
.0304 
.0351 
.0291 

.0537 
.0300 
.0252 
.0504 
.0140 

.0897 
.0436 
.0001 
.0403 
.0767 

.0291 
.0356 
.0435 
.0278 
.0521 

$0.4286 
.1776 
.3509 
.1739 
.0918 

.1016 
.1185 
.1958 
.7561 
.2684 

.1374 
.1202 
.0114 
.3940 

$0. 1526 
.1171 
.1410 
.1129 
.1265 

.0895 
.1093 
.1280 
.1331 
.1065 

.1120 
.0446 
.1039 
.1528 
.3371 

.2854 
.1353 
.1159 
.1496 
.1187 

$0.6111 
.3846 
.5223 
.3219 
.2474 

.2448 
.2578 
.3490 
.9396 
.3889 

.3391 
.2083 
.1154 
.5871 
.4138 

.4331 
.5996 
.2911 
.5709 
.3434 

.5181 
.7396 
.3132 
.6260 
.3350 

.6166 
.3065 
.3689 
.6455 
.3540 

.3218 
.2708 
.2620 
.7971 
.1582 

.4386 
.7037 

$4.2842 

2.                     

4.3911 

3 

4.4472 

4.                 

4.4087 

5.                    •    

4.7873 

6 

4.2945 

7. 

4.4104 

8 

4.8435 

9 

4.0527 

10 

4.7819 

11                 

4.3106 

12 

4.2818 

13                         

4.4306 

14 

4.5563 

15                                  

4.7393 

16.               

1186 
.4287 
.1317 
.3935 
.1726 

4.3453 

17.                      

4.6341 

18.                       

4.3314 

19                         

4.7941 

20 

4.3148 

21                                  

5.2362 

22.                   

.0358 
.0943 
.0363 
.0291 

.0350 
.0081 
.0825 
.0300 
.0333 

.0262 

.5049 
.1175 
.4607 
.0926 

.4467 
.0827 
.1737 
.4996 

.2278 

.1129 
.2241 
.1052 
.4919 
.0673 

.1019 
.4924 

.1989 
.1014 
.1290 
.2133 

.1349 
.2157 
.1127 
.1159 
.0929 

.1827 
.0467 
.1281 
.2805 
.0099 

.3097 
.1821 

5.2460 

23.            

4.3931 

24 

4.6575 

25.                   

4.3981 

26.            

4.7030 

27 

4.5192 

28        

4.3459 

29 

4.1786 

30 

4.8324 

31      

4.4405 

32                           

4.6703 

33        

.0287 
.0247 
.0810 

.0270 
.0292 

4.5239 

34 

4.1776 

35.                 

4.3088 

36      '. 

4.3115 

37.               

4.4821 

f 


<, 


/ 


TABLB  24.— GROSS  RECEIPTS  PER  100  POUNDS  OF  BEET  SUGAR,  SELLING  EX- 
PENSE AND  NET  PRICE  AT  FACTORY  PER  100  POUNDS,  BY  COMPANIES,  FOR 
THE  YEARS  1909-10  TO  1913-14,  INCLUSIVE— Continued. 

1913-14. 


Gross 
receipts. 

Selling  expense. 

Company. 

Broker- 
age and 
commis- 
sion. 

Freight. 

Other 
expense. 

Total 

selling 

expense. 

Net  price 
atmc- 
tory. 

1           

$4.4321 
4.2492 
4.4366 
4.3212 
4.4089 

4.1616 
4.0744 
4.6257 
4.2163 
4.3180 

4.2751 

$0.0299 

.  0798 

.0335 

.0295 

.0295 

.0256 
.0800 
.0387 
.0149 
.0141 

.0822 

$0.4321 
.1842 
.3077 
.1253 
.1087 

.1222 
.1248 
.1812 
.1342 
.2565 

.1444 

$0.1345 
.1309 
.1335 
.1017 
.1214 

.0768 
.1204 
.1834 
.1747 
.0939 

.1647 

$0.5965 
.3949 
.4747 
.2565 
.2596 

.2246 
.3252 
.4033 
.3238 
.3645 

.3913 

$3.8356 

2         

3.8543 

3                        

3.9619 

4                            

4.0647 

5                    

4.1493 

6                    

3.9370 

7                       

3.7492 

8                           

4.2224 

9                            

3.8925 

10         ..          

3.9535 

11                            

3.8838 

12                                                                          

13                            

3.9568 
4.5003 
4.4057 

4.2560 
4.4180 
4.1788 
4. 5708 
4.1273 

5.1551 
5.3347 
4.3975 
4.5087 
4.5230 

4.5617 
4.2642 
4.2314 
4.4341 
4.4572 

4.3733 
4.4454 
4.2594 
4.5864 
4.6498 

4.7786 
4.5795 

.0039 
.0390 
.0098 

.0331 
.0371 
.0267 
.0327 
.0558 

.0251 
.0497 
.0861 
.0367 
.0431 

.0345 
.0375 
.0952 
.0408 
.0284 

.0094 

.0198 
.2688 
.1433 

.1061 
.4162 
.  1382 
.1895 
.1475 

.3259 
.3865 
.1628 
.4512 
.0728 

.3842 
.1205 
.1763 
.4160 
.1396 

.0764 
.1517 
.0872 
.3981 
.0888 

.0911 
.3736 

.0810 
.1399 

.0648 

.1754 
.1101 
.1107 
.1303 
.1056 

.1351 
.1999 
.1590 
.1194 
.1645 

.1578 
.1812 
.1261 
.1017 
.1890 

.1029 
.0278 
.1243 
.2452 
.0103 

.1609 
.2052 

.1047 
.4477 
.2179 

.3146 
.5634 
.2756 
.3525 
.3089 

.4861 
.6361 
.4079 
.6073 
.2804 

.5765 
.3392 
.3976 
.5585 
.3570 

.1887 
.1795 
.2423 
.6707 
.1904 

.2924 
.6138 

3.8521 

14                     

4.0526 

15                         

4. 1878 

16                            

3.9414 

17 

3.8546 

18 

3.9032 

19.     

4.2183 

20                    ^ 

3.81S4 

21                    

4.6690 

22 

4.6986 

23                    

3.9896 

24                     

3.9014 

25 

4.2426 

26 

3.9852 

27             

3.9250 

28                       

3.8338 

29                 

3.8756 

30 

4.1002 

31.     

4.1^46 

32 

4.2659 

33 

.0308 
.0274 
.0913 

.0404 
.0350 

4.0171 

34 

3.9157 

35 

4.4594 

36 

4.4862 

37 

3.9657 

I 


i 


• 


j 


100         THE  BEET  SUGAB  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

In  the  foregoing  table  it  is  seen  that  the  cost  of  selling  in  1913-14 
ranged  from  $0.1047  in  company  No.  13  to  $0.6707  per  100  pounds  in 
company  No.  34.  The  average  for  all  companies  was  $0.4542.  The 
average  for  all  companies  in  1909-10,  was  $0.3865;  in  1910-11, 
$0.3782 ;  in  1911-12,  $0.4281 ;  and  in  1912-13,  $0.4731.  The  differences 
in  selling  expense  for  the  various  companies  are  due  largely  to  the 
differences  in  the  amount  of  freight  paid.  i 

Freight  charges.— The  freight  on  sugar,  which  is  the  largest  item 
of  selling  expense,  is  usually  prepaid  by  the  company.  Freight  is 
also  paid  on  the  containers,  the  weight  of  a  bag  being  considered  as 
one  pound  and  that  of  a  barrel  as  16  pounds.  Naturally,  the  average 
freight  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  is  higher  for  large  companies,  since 
the  larger  proportion  of  their  product  is  sold  in  more  distant  markets 
and  consequently  on  higher  freight  rates.  Also,  companies  in  the 
East  enjoy  some  advantage  over  companies  whose  factories  are 
located  in  the  West,  due  to  their  nearness  to  the  great  consuming 
centers.  In  1913-14  the  highest  average  freight  charge  for  any  east- 
ern company  was  $0.1842  per  bag.  The  average  for  the  four  largest 
western  companies  was  $0.3672  per  bag.  The  highest  average  freight 
in  this  year  was  $0.4512  for  company  No.  24  and  the  lowest  was 
$0.0198  for  company  No.  13.  The  latter  company  and  company  No. 
35,  however,  dispose  of  most  of  their  product  on  an  f .  o.  b.  factory 
basis.  For  this  reason  selling  costs  are  not  strictly  comparable  with 
those  of  other  companies.  Six  companies  in  all  had  an  average 
freight  cost  of  less  than  10  cents  per  bag,  while  the  cost  exceeded  iO 
cents  per  bag  in  only  four  cases. 

Usually  the  average  freight  in  one  year  does  not  differ  materially 
from  that  paid  in  other  years.  Apparently  such  differences  are 
chiefly  due  to  variations  in  points  to  which  sugar  is  shipped.  The 
wide  differences  in  1909-10  and  1912-13  as  compared  with  the  other 
years  for  company  No.  9  can  not  be  explained  unless  the  amounts 
for  these  two  years  include  some  freight  paid  in  other  years.  In 
1911  a  larger  per  cent  of  the  product  was  sold  outside  the  State  than 
in  1912,  and  yet  only  about  $2,700  freight  was  paid  as  compared 
with  $69,000  in  the  latter  year  on  a  slightly  larger  amount.  It  will 
also  be  noticed  that  for  company  No.  8  the  average  freight  in  1909 
and  1911  was  much  higher  than  for  other  years.  Some  sugar  was 
returned  to  this  company  as  being  off  color  which  necessitated  the 
paying  of  the  freight  three  times,  although  it  is  not  known  what  per 
cent  of  the  total  amount  sold  is  affected  thereby.  The  freight  cost  is 
shown  for  company  No.  21  for  only  one  year  as  the  detailed  cost  of 
selling  was  not  secured  for  other  years. 

Other  expenses.— The  average  brokerage  paid  is  about  3  cents  per 
100  pounds.     The  usual  charge  paid  brokers  is  3  cents  per  bag,  5 


I 


DISTBIBUTION   OP  SUGAR. 


101 


cents  per  bale,  or  10  cents  per  barrel.  Companies  Nos.  2,  6,  7,  11,  23, 
and  28  paid  an  additional  5  per  cent  since  the  broker  in  these  cases 
assumed  the  responsibility  to  the  customer  and  in  some  instances 
advanced  money  to  the  company  before  the  sugar  was  sold.  Com- 
pany No.  32  disposed  of  its  product  locally  and  paid  no  brokerage, 
and  company  No.  13  paid  no  brokerage,  all  its  sugar  being  taken  by 
one  concern.  The  cost  of  selling  for  company  No.  22  in  1909  was 
charged  in  the  accounts  of  1910,  and  the  amount  has  been  prorated 
on  the  basis  of  the  quantity  sold  in  each  year. 

In  1909  and  1910  the  regular  cash  discount  was  1  per  cent.  Since 
then  the  usual  discount  has  been  2  per  cent  for  cash  in  seven  days. 
Company  No.  35  sold  its  sugar  net  as  did  No.  13  in  1909  and  1910. 
Practically  all  sugar  is  sold  on  a  cash  basis,  and  the  losses  from  bad 
debts  are  practically  nothing. 

Storage  and  insurance  are  charges  on  unsold  sugar  which  has 
been  shipped  to  distributing  points.  A  dealer,  for  example,  at  some 
central  point  may  buy  less  than  a  car  load.  The  company  ships  a 
car  to  him  in  order  to  save  freight  charges  and  some  time  may  elapse 
before  the  remainder  of  the  car  is  sold.  The  dealer  buying  the 
remainder  of  the  car  pays  the  freight  from  the  distributing  point. 
Insurance  on  sugar  in  their  own  w^arehouses,  hoAvever,  is  included 
with  the  insurance  of  factory  buildings,  etc.,  and  therefore  included 
in  factory  costs. 

The  charge  for  allowances  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  price  to 
the  wholesaler  is  guaranteed.  That  is  to  say,  when  the  manufac- 
turer makes  a  sale  he  guarantees  the  wholesaler  or  jobber  against  a 
decline  in  price.  When  sugar  was  sold  it  was  billed  at  the  market 
price  on  the  day  of  sale,  but  the  manufacturer  guaranteed  the  whole- 
saler or  jobber  that  in  final  settlement  the  price  should  not  exceed  the 
market  at  the  time  of  delivery.  Thus,  if  a  quantity  of  sugar  was 
sold  on  a  day  when  the  price  was,  say,  $5  per  100  pounds,  but  when 
delivered,  say,  10  or  20  days  hence,  the  market  was  then  $4.80  per 
100  pounds,  the  wholesaler  was  allowed  the  difference.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  the  market  advanced  to,  say,  $5.10  per  100  pounds,  the 
wholesaler  still  got  his  sugar  at  $5.  In  other  words,  the  manufac- 
turer guaranteed  the  wholesaler  or  jobber  against  loss  on  a  declining 
market,  but  did  not  receive  the  reciprocal  advantage  of  an  advanced 
price  upon  a  rising  market. 

While  it  was  formerly  the  custom  among  cane-sugar  refiners  to 
guarantee  the  price  against  decline,  this  has  not  been  the  case  for 
some  years.  A  large  refiner  states  that  the  cane-sugar  refiners  aban- 
doned this  custom  because  the  margin  between  the  price  of  raw  and 
refined  sugars  has  been  so  reduced  that  there  was  nothing  left  as  an 
insurance  against  the  risk'  taken  in  guaranteeing  against  decline. 


t 
\ 


t 

1 


I 


87721— IT- 


'S ■ 


i 


102  THE  BEET  SUGAK  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

The  argument  in  favor  of  the  guarantee  is  that  it  enables  the  manu- 
facturer or  refiner  to  keep  a  considerable  amount  of  business  on  his 
books  under  contract.  The  beet  factories  operate  but  about  three 
months  in  the  year  and  contract  for  their  raw  material  a  year  ahead 
at  a  fixed  price.  They  thus  know  about  what  it  will  cost  to  produce 
granulated  sugar  so  that  a  rising  market  simply  increases  their 
profits  without  affecting  their  cost  of  production.  They  are,  there- 
fore, in  a  better  position  to  guarantee  the  price  than  cane  refiners. 
\  Probably  the  main  reason,  however,  for  maintaining  this  custom 
/  among  beet  sugar  manufacturers  is  their  desire  to  sell  as  much  of 
I  their  product  as  possible  in  territory  near  the  point  of  manufacture. 
By  guaranteeing  against  a  decline  in  price  they  are  better  able  to 
book  their  output  in  near-by  territory  where  they  have  the  most 
favorable  freight  rates.  Since  their  cost  of  production  is  practically 
determined  long  in  advance  of  the  time  of  manufacture  they  are 
placed  at  no  greater  competitive  disadvantage  because  of  guaran- 
teeing the  price  than  they  would  be  at  if  they  did  not  do  so  but  met 
competition  from  cane  sugar  as  it  comes. 

Net  prices  received. — The  delivered  price  for  beet  sugar  is  based 
upon  the  price  of  granulated  cane  sugar  at  New  York,  New  Orleans, 
or  San  Francisco.  This  price  is  adjusted  by  the  freight  to  the  dis- 
tributing point,  and  by  the  allowance  of  a  differential  against  beet 
sugar.  Although  beet  and  cane  sugar  are  chemically  the  same, 
there  is  a  preference  for  cane  sugar  which  compels  beet  sugar  to 
be  sold  at  a  lower  price.  The  amount  of  this  differential  depends 
largely  on  the  strength  of  the  preference  for  cane  sugar  in  a  par- 
ticular territory  but  to  some  extent  on  market  conditions.  The  usual 
differential  is  10  cents  per  100  pounds  though  it  is  sometimes  as  low 
as  5  cents  and  at  others  as  high  as  20  cents  or  more.  Other  condi- 
tions which  account  for  the  difference  in  the  selling  price  of  the 
various  companies  are  the  time  of  marketing  the  product,  freight 
rates,  competitive  conditions  in  the  different  markets,  quality  of 
I  the  sugar  produced,  etc. 
t-^^^In  1913-14  the  average  net  price  received  at  the  factory  ranged 
from  $3.7492  for  company  No.  7  to  $4.6986  per  100  pounds  for  com- 
pany *No.  22,  the  average  for  all  companies  being  $3.9597.  The  dif- 
ferences of  course  are  due  in  many  cases  to  the  differences  in  the  cost 
of  selling.  For  example,  the  selling  price  of  companies  Nos.  1, 17,  24, 
29,  and  34  was  higher  than  the  average  for  all  companies,  yet  due  to 
the  high  freight  charges  the  average  net  price  received  was  less  than 
the  average  for  all  companies.  In  this  year  some  differences  may  also 
be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  during  the  first  half  of  1914  the 
price  of  sugar  was  low,  so  that  the  average  price  for  the  companies 
which  closed  their  books  January  1  would  be  somewhat  higher  than 


DISTBIBUnON  OF  SUGAR. 


103 


H 


f 


t 


< 


/ 


V 


X 


for  those  which  did  not  close  their  books  until  the  f olloAving  April  or 
May.    The  averages  for  companies  Nos.  21  and  22  are  high  in  all 
years  since  they  are  able  to  sell  their  product  largely  in  noncom- 
petitive territory.    The  average  net  price  received  for  all  companies 
in   1909-10  was  $5.0561   per  100   pounds,  in   1910-11   $4.9674,  in 
1911-12  $5.4216,  and  in  1912-13  $4.9225.     The  range  in  prices  re- 
ceived by  the  various  companies  is  widest  in  the  year  1911-12.    This 
was  due  to  the  sudden  rise  in  the  price  of  sugar  during  the  year 
caused  by  the  shortage  of  the  beet  crop  in  Europe.    Companies  whose 
season  began  early  no  doubt  sold  large  quantities  in  August  or  early 
in  September,  while  others  sold  a  large  part  of  their  product  in 
October  or  November  when  the  price  was  highest.    For  example,  the 
difference  in  the  average  net  price  received  by  company  No.  5  and 
company  No.  30  was  not  more  than  5  cents  in  other  years,  while  in 
this  year  the  latter  company  received  71  cents  per  bag  less  than  com- 
pany No.  5.    In  1911-12  company  No.  30  sold  more  sugar  in  August 
than  in  any  other  month,  while  company  No.  5  did  not  begin  making 
sugar  until  the  1st  of  October.    As  will  be  seen,  however,  in  Table  25 
below,  the  bulk  of  the  product  is  not  sold  during  the  short  producing 
period  as  might  be  supposed  and  as  is  sometimes  claimed. 

When  beet  sugar  is  sold.— Although  practically  all  beet  sugar  is 
made  between  August  1  and  January  1  it  is  placed  on  the  market  h 
throughout  the  greater  part  of  the  year.    The  quantity  sold  in  each  r 
month  was  secured  from  30  of  the  37  companies  which  in  1913-14 
sold  95  per  cent  of  the  total  quantity  sold  by  all  companies.    No  in-  ( 
formation  as  to  the  time  of  selling  was  secured  from  any  factory  in 
Wisconsin.    In  the  table  below  the  per  cent  of  sales  made  in  each  ' 
month  is  shown  by  States: 

Table  25.-PERCENTAGE  OF  TOTAL  SALES  OF  BEET  SUGAR  MADE  IN  EACH  MONTH 
BY  YEARS  AND  BY  STATES  OF  PRODUCTION,  1910-11  TO  1913-14. 


Mar. 

Apr. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

6.6 

7.4 

9.2 

30.2 

10.8 

15.6 

5.7 

16.6 

33.2 

7.1 

Dec. 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Total. 

1910-11. 
Arizona 

3.7 
10.4 
10.5 

5.0 
2.4 
3.8 

9.2 
2.9 
7.6 

16.5 
2.8 
6.3 

5.9 
5.7 

7.8 

7.7 

20.1 

8.3 

12.3 

17.6 

5.6 

9.4 

10.1 

6.0 

11.7 

3.5 

7.3 

5.4 

10.0 

6.2 

3.3 

7.5 
7.0 
13.4 
31.6 
15.7 
23.6 
10.6 
22.7  i 
33.3 
8.6  ! 

7.5 
5.8 
8.5 

16.7 
6.6 

16.9 
6.9 

13.7 

24.8 
5.4 

8.7 

7.8 

13.0 

9.8 

20.7 

30.5 

11.5 

37.0 

2.5 

8.2 

California 

100.0 

Colorado 

100.0 

Iowa..i 

100.0 

Kansas 

Michigan 

13.9 

2.8 

33.6 

2.2 
0.2 
2.3 

3.2. 
0.2* 
4.7 

8.6 
0.0 
4.2 

5.2 
0.0 

6.2 

4.7 
1.2 
3.9 

4.9 
1.7 
5.0 

100.0 
100.0 

Montana 

100.0 

Nebraska 

100.0 

Ohio 

100.0 

Utah  and  Idaho... 

16.7 

14.6 

10.5 

7.0 

5.7 

4.9 

8.0 

100.0 
100.0 

Total 

10.1 

3.9 

4.6 

1 

3.8 

4.9 

9.6 

8.7 

7.2 

10.2 

13.3  1    9.3 

14.4 

100.0 

\t 


II 


■.,A 


104  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 

TABLE  25  -PERCENTAGE  OF  TOTAL  SALES  OF  BEET  SUGAR  MADE  IN  EACH  MONTH. 
BY  YEARS  AND  BY  STATES  OF  PRODUCTION.  1910-11  TO  1913-14-CoBtlnued. 


DISTRIBUTION   OF   SUGAR. 


Mar. 


1911-12. 


Arizona 

California 

Colorado 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Michigan 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Ohio 

Utah  and  Idaho... 

Total 


4.9 

7.3 

12.0 


39.1 
19.2 
16.4 
10.6 
0.6 
5.9 


Apr. 


8.7 
4.0 
4.2 


May. 


June. 


July. 


11.2 


16.5 
3.0 
2.8 
4.0 


5.3 


7.2 
3.5 
7.1 


9.0 
0.3 
5.7 

3.8 


8.6 
5.0 
5.8 


14.9 
0.0 
7.9 
3.3 


Aug.   Sept 


8.8 
3.9 
6.5 


11.6     12.0 


6.5 
O.D 
6.1 
7.1 


14.4 

17.3 

1.9 


0.1 
0.0 
1.8 
5.9 


10.1 


4.5 


17.5 

21.4 

1.4 


Oct. 


4.3 
13.6 
11.8 
11.0 


Nov. 


0.0 
1.7 
0.4 


2.7 


15.4 
14.4 
23.3 
17.4 
17.9 


5.5 

3.0 
10.8 
41.6 

0.0 
20.0 

5.4 
11.5 
26.1 

3.0 


Dec. 


4.0 


5.0 


1912-13. 


Arizona 

California 

Colorado — 

Iowa 

Elansas 

Michigan' 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

Ohio 

Utah  and  Idaho. 


0.2 
4.5 
2.6 


2.3 

3.9 

20.2 

2.6 


0.5 
4.3 
2.5 


0.1 
9.1 


Total. 


1913-14. 


Arizona 

California 

Colorado 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Michigan' 

Minnesota 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

Ohio 

Utah  and  Idaho. 


4.9 


1.3 
3.5 
2.2 

4.2 


5.3 


0.8 
4.6 
1.3 


0.0 
6.0 


0.3 
6.5 
5.7 
2.6 


0 
14 


3.6 


\2.6 
7.3 

14.4 
6.8 

42.9 
4.1 


Total. 


7.9 
14.3 
0.4 
2.4 
7.1 


12.2 
4.8 
7.2 
2.8 

24.9 
0.7 


11.8 
7.0 

10.9 
7.0 

12.5 
0.2 


0.7 
14.7 


4.8 


29.0 
3.8 
3.0 


7.0       7.8 


14.2 


9.0 


1.7 
5.5 
6.9 
7.1 


17.5 

10.3 

7.4 


5.3 


0.6 
15.5 


9.7 

2.8 

4.5 

10.1 


9.7 

18.7 

9.9 


0.0 

8.8 


3.6 
0.6 
2.1 

6.7 


0.1 
4.3 


11.6 
8.9 
5.4 

15.3 
3.4 
1.2 
7.6 
3.6 
7.1 

14.5 
2.3 


5.2 
5.7 
8.6 

13.4 
0.6 

10.5 
5.0 
7.2 

19.5 
3.9 


Jan. 


14.5 

3.0 
11.9 
20.8 

6.5 
19.2 
10.2 

7.7 
29.3 

6.4 


Feb. 


7.3      9.6 


4.3 
8.8 
8.9 

36.2 
5.4 

12.8 
5.4 
9.1 

50.3 

23.0 
3.9 


5.7 


7.2 


9.9 


5.9 
6.2 
2.2 
0.9 
6.2 


5.5 


8.5 
8.0 
5.6 
0.1 
9.9 


7.4 
7.6 
8.0 
1.6 
4.0 
0.2 


28.1 
6.6 
9.5 
L7 


8.8 


22.1 

18.3 

4.4 

0.0 


5.8 
19.2 

2.8 


7.4 
10.7 
10.9 
19.8 
12.8 
23.4 

9.1 
15.2 
35.5 
24.2 

5.4 


0.4 
12.3 
18.0 
13.2 

6.8 
12.4 
22.6 
15.2 

7.1 
16.7 


Total. 


8.4 

9.6 
19.3 
22.3 
22.1 
21.2 
12.8 
15.9 

3.5 
25.1 

6.7 


0.0 


9.4 


0.1 


7.9 


7.1 
7.3 
0.9 
0.3 
14.3 


7.5 


10.1 
6.6 
2.4 
0.0 

19.2 


0.0 


7.7 
8.5 
0.3 
0.0 
9.7 


0.1 


12.1 

6.5 

16.7 


8.0 

5.8 
2.6 


8.5 


8.3 


10.6 


16.4 
31.7 
8.6 
7.6 
4.4 
18.5 
5.7 


7.5 
10.0 
31.9 

1.8 
19.9 
40.5 
11.9 
10.0 
58.1 
20.4 

1.8 


13.1 


15.1 


14.8 


9.9 
10.1 
27.0 

6.4 
36.2 
15.0 
17.2 
19.6 

3.6 
11.4 

9.2 


100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 


100.0 


100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 


16.3 


5.7 

5.6 

13.1 

4.1 

16.7 

22.0 

5.4 

9.2 

12.6 

10.6 

4.9 


2.5 

11.6 

15.3 

5.8 

22.1 

5.2 

9.7 

8.7 

2.4 

22.2 

5.2 


8.0 


9.6     10.5 


1.4 
9.1 
3.1 
4.0 

19.5 
0.6 
9.2 
7.8 
8.1 

24.6 
2.4 


100.0 


7. 2       9. 5 


7.6 


100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 


100.0 


1  Includes  the  sugar  sold  from  the  Decatur,  Ind.,  factory. 

The  above  table  shows  that  the  companies  with  factories  in  Michi- 
gan sold  practically  all  of  their  product  before  April,  except  in  the 
year  1912-13.  In  that  year  22.5  per  cent  of  the  total  amount  was 
sold  during  the  period  from  April  to  September,  no  doubt  due  to 
the  fact  that  many  of  the  factories  did  not  close  the  1911-12  cam- 
paign until  March.  In  California  manufacture  begins  earlier  than 
in  other  States  and  about  one-third  of  the  product  is  sold  in  August 


f 


Y 


/ 


V 


i 


105 


and  September,  although  large  quantities  are  sold  in  each  month. 
In  Colorado,  Montana,  Utah,  and  Idaho  a  larger  per  cent  is  mar- 
keted later  in  the  year,  and  the  companies  with  factories  in  Utah 
and  Idaho  in  2  of  the  4  years  sold  more  than  30  per  cent  of  their 
product  during  June  and  July.  The  product  of  the  companies  in 
Nevada,  Ohio,  Arizona,  Iowa,  and  Minnesota  is  small  and  is  disposed 
of  shortly  after  it  is  made.  In  Arizona  manufacturing  usually  begins 
in  July,  a  large  part  of  their  product  being  sold  during  July  and 
August.  In  Kansas  and  Nebraska  the  product  is  sold  at  various 
times  of  the  year,  but  usually  the  larger  per  cent  of  it  is  disposed 
of  by  the  end  of  February.  In  2  years,  however,  the  Garden  City 
Sugar  &  Land  Co.  sold  about  40  per  cent  of  its  product  in  March. 

Of  the  total  amount  sold  by  the  companies  included  less  than  ont- 
half  was  sold  during  the  sugar-making  season.  In  1910-11  49  per 
cent  was  sold  during  the  period  from  August  1  to  January  1;  in 
1911-12  45.3  per  cent,  in  1912-13  44  per  cent,  and  in  1913-14  43.6 
per  cent.  In  the  latter  year  the  per  cent  was  even  less  than  shown 
since  the  quantities  sold  during  January  and  February  by  certain 
California  companies  which  closed  their  books  January  1  is  not 
included.  In  three  of  the  four  years  more  sugar  was  sold  in  Febru- 
ary than  in  any  other  month.  While  the  total  product  amounts  to 
only  about  one-sixth  of  the  sugar  consumed  in  the  United  States, 
if  it  were  all  put  on  the  market  during  the  producing  period  no 
doubt  the  effect  on  prices  for  cane  granulated  sugar  would  be  quite 
noticeable.  Beet  sugar  is  produced  during  only  five  or  six  months  of 
the  year  and  most  of  it  in  three  or  four  months,  but  it  is  sold  through- 
out the  year.  Not  more  than  16.3  per  cent  of  the  product  in  any  year 
is  sold  in  a  single  month.  That  the  average  price  for  cane  refined 
sugar  is  more  often  higher  than  loAver  while  beet  sugar  is  being  made 
is  shown  in  the  statement  below.  As  the  campaigns  of  certain  fac- 
tories sometimes  extend  into  January,  the  average  price  for  the  six 
months  from  February  1  to  July  31  has  been  compared  with  the 
average  price  for  the  six  months  ending  January  31. 

AVERAGE   QUOTATIONS   FOR   GRANULATED    SUGAR   AT  NEW  YORK,   FEBRUARY, 

1906,  TO  JANUARY,  1915,  BY  6-MONTH  PERIODS. 
[Cents  pe."  pound.] 


Feb.  1  to  July  31. 
Aug.  1  to  Jan.  31. 


1914-15 


1913-14 


3.97 
5.63 


4.20 
4.25 


1912-13 


5.15 
4.79 


1911-12 


4.79 
5.99 


1910-11  1909-10 


5.08 

4.82 


4.68 
4.90 


1908-9 


1907-8 


5.12 
4.73' 


4.68 
4.&4 


1906-7 


4.43 
4.63 


\ 


It  is  noted  in  the  above  statement  that  the  price  of  sugar  was 
higher  during  the  period  in  which  beet  sugar  is  made  in  5  of  the  9 
years  than  during  the  period  in  which  no  beet  sugar  is  made.  The 
average  price  during  the  latter  period  for  the  9  years  was  4.68  cents 
per  pound  as  compared  with  4.93  cents  for  the  period  in  which  beet 
sugar  is  produced. 


106  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Quotations  of  granulated  sugar  at  New  York  by  months,  for  the 
26  years  ending  with  1915,  are  shown  in  Table  27,  at  the  end  of  this 
chapter.  This  table  also  shows  the  price  of  Cuban  raw  sugar  96  de- 
grees duty  paid  and  the  margin  between  raw  and  refined  sugar  at 
]  New  York.  In  some  years  prices  of  granulated  sugars  were  lower 
during  the  beet-sugar  producing  period  and  in  some  they  were  higher. 
In  1908,  1910,  and  1912  the  range  was  lower  during  the  beet  season. 
In  1909,  1911,  and  1914  it  was  higher.  In  1913  there  was  not  much 
variation.  If  prices  were  uniformly  lower  during  the  beet-produc- 
ing season  it  would  indicate  that  it  was  due  to  the  influence  of  beet 
sugar.  Since  this  is  not  the  case,  the  cause  of  lower  prices  in  some 
years  must  be  sought  elsewhere  than  in  the  sale  of  beet  sugar.  Fluc- 
tuations in  price  are  probably  due  mainly  to  world  conditions  in  the 
sugar  market  and  in  times  past  no  doubt  monopolistic  conditions  have 
had  considerable  influence  on  prices  in  this  country. 

In  this  connection  it  is  of  interest  to  note  that  the  prices  of  sugar 
are  considerably  higher  in  those  sections  of  the  country  where  there 
is  little  or  no  competition  from  Cuban  sugar.  This  lack  of  competi- 
tion is  due  mainly,  if  not  entirely,  to  high  freight  rates  from  refin- 
ing centers.  A  compilation  of  weekly  quotations  in  Detroit,  Denver, 
and  San  Francisco  for  beet  sugar  has  been  made  for  the  year  1913-14 
and  the  differences  between  the  quotations  in  these  markets  and  the 
New  York  quotations  for  granulated  cane  sugar  are  shown  in  Table 
26  below.  At  practically  all  times  the  quotations  for  beet  sugar  in 
these  three  markets  are  above  the  quotations  for  cane  sugar  in  New 
York.  The  quotations  for  Detroit  were  taken  from  the  Detroit  News 
and  the  Detroit  Free  Press ;  those  for  Denver  were  supplied  by  the 
Great  Western  Sugar  Co.,  while  those  for  San  Francisco  were  taken 
from  the  San  Francisco  Examiner. 

Table  26 —EXCESS  OF  DETROIT,  DENVER.  AND  SAN  FRANCISCO  QUOTATIONS  FOR 
GRANITLATED  SUGAR  (BEET)  OVER  NEW  YORK  QUOTATIONS  (CANE),  WEEKLY 

1913  AND  1914.  icents  per  100  pounds.] 


DISTRIBUTION   OF  SUGAB. 


107 


1913 


Date. 


Jan.  2.. 
9., 
16. 
23. 
30. 
Feb.  6. 
13. 
20. 
27. 


Detroit 
over 
New 

York.» 


$0.25 
.24 

.24 

.24 
.39 
.43 

.44 
.48 
.38 


Denver 

over 

New 

York. 


SO.  40 
.54 
,54 
.54 
.59 
.63 
.59 
.63 
.63 


San 
Fran- 
cisco 
over 

New 
York. 


1914 


$0.20 
.24 
.24 
.24 
.29 
.33 
.29 
.33 
.33 


Date. 


Jan.  8.. 

15. 

22. 

29. 
Feb. 5. 

12. 

19. 

26. 
Mar.  5. 


Detroit 
over 
New 

York. 


$0.33 
.23 
.23 
.23 
.23 
.23 
.33 
.38 
.38 


Denver 
over 
New 

York. 


$0.53 
.53 
.53 
.53 
.53 
.43 
.43 
.43 
.43 


San 
Fran- 
cisco 
over 
New 
York. 


$0.23 
.23 
.23 
.23 
.23 
.13 
.13 
.13 
.13 


t 


< 


/ 


V 


< 


Table  26.— EXCESS  OF  DETROIT,  DENVER,  AND  SAN  FRANCISCO  QUOTATIONS 
FOR  GRANULATED  SUGAR  (BEET)  OVER  NEW  YORK  QUOTATIONS  (CANE), 
WEEKLY,  1913  AND  1914 — Continued. 


1013 

1 

1914 

Date. 

Detroit 
over 
New 

York.i 

Denver 
over 
New 

York. 

San 
Fran- 
cisco 
over 
New 
York. 

Date. 

Detroit 
over 
New 

York. 

Denver 
over 
New 

York. 

San 
Fran- 
cisco 
over 
New 
York. 

Mar  6                  ..... 

$0.34 
.39 
.43 
.33 
.33 
.43 
.33 
.28 
.28 

(1) 

$0.59 
.59 
.63 
.63 
.63 
.73 
.73 
.68 
.58 
.58 
.58 
.68 
.58 
.58 
.58 
.58 
.59 
.49 
.49 
.49 
.49 
.49 
.39 
.49 
.49 
.59 
.69 
.69 
.69 
.59 
.54 
.63 
.58 
.48 
.48 
.54 
.54 
.54' 
.54 
.58 
.58 
.53 
.53 
.53 

$0.29 
.29 
.33 
.33 
.33 
.43 
.23 
.18 
.18 
.28 
.28 
.38 
.28 
.28 
.28 
.28 
.29 
.19 
.19 
.19 
.19 
.19 
.09 
.19 
.19 
.29 
.39 
.39 
.39 
.29 
.54 
.43- 
.28 
.18 
.18 
.24 
.24 
.24 
.24 
.28 
.28 
.23 
.23 
.33  1 

Mar.l2 

$0.48 

.43 

.48 

.48 

.57 

.57 

.51 

.51 

.42 

.33 

.38 

.38 

.38 

.38 

.29 

.39 

.39 

.39 

.49 

.49 

.63 

.50 

.29 

.80 

.79 

.79 

.79 

.79 

1.27 

1.03 

.62 

.87 

.47 

.51 

.60 

.50 

.25 

.25 

.35 

.35 

.40 

.50 

.40 

$0.53 
.43 
.43 

.43 

.52 
.52 
.46 
.46 
.47 
.43 
.43 
.43 
.43 
.43 
.44 
.44 
.44 
.44 
.44 
.44 
.48 
«.05 
.49 
.50 
.49 
.49 
.49 
.49 
.97 
.73 
.42 
.42 
.52 
.36 
.15 
.15 
.15 
.25 
.45 
.65 
.55 
.65 
.45 

$0.23 

13 

19 

.06 

20 

26 

.OS 

27 

Apr.2 

.08 

Anr  3                   

9 

.17 

10 

i6 

.17 

17                        .   . 

23 

.11 

24                    .     . 

30 

.11 

Mav  1                  

May7 

.12 

8 

14 

.08 

15 

21 

.06 

22 

28 

.06 

28 

June4 

.06 

June  5 

11 

.06 

12 

18 

.09 

19 

25 

.00 

26 

July  2 

.00 

Julv  2 

9 

.09 

10 

16 

.09 

17 

23 

.09 

24 

30 

.13 

31 

Aug.6 

«.40 

Aue.  7 

13 

«.06 

14 

• 

20 

«.05 

21 

27 

«.06 

28     

Sept. 3 

«.06 

Sept.  4 

11 

«.06 

11                  

17 

«.06 

18             ... 

24 

.42 

25          

Oct.    1 

.18 

Oct.  2   

8 

.17 

9 

15 

.17 

16 

22 

.27 

23          .... 

29 

.36 

30                     .  . 

Nov.5 

.15 

Nov  6 

.49 
.49 
.49 
.39 
.43 
.33 
.38 
.33 
.43 

12 

.15 

13 

19 

.15 

20 

25 

.15 

26..            .  .. 

Dec.  3 

.25 

Dec.  4.     . 

10 

.25 

11 

17 

.25 

18 

24 

.25 

24                 ... 

30 

.15 

31 

Weekly  average 

Weekly  average 

.37 

.67 

.27 

.48 

.45 

.12 

1  No  quotations  in  Detroit  from  May  8  to  Oct.  30. 


« Under. 


\/ 


I  No  quotations  in  Detroit  from  May  8  to  Oct.  30. 


«KiMi 


Htm 


HPI 


^ 


/ 


108  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

No  quotations  for  Detroit  were  available  from  the  sources  used 
from  May  to  October,  inclusive,  1913.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that 
during  that  year  there  was  but  little  beet  sugar  upon  that  market  dur- 
ing these  months.  The  1912  crop  had  been  sold  by  the  end  of  April 
and  the  1913  crop  was  not  on  the  market  until  about  November  1. 

The  margin  between  the  quotations  in  Denver  and  New  York  were 
generally  considerably  wider  than  the  margins  between  the  other 
markets  and  New  York.  The  only  exception  was  between  Detroit 
•ind  New  York  during  a  few  months  in  1914.  From  about  August  1 
to  the  middle  of  September,  1914,  the  San  Francisco  price  was 
.lightly  under  the  New  York  price,  and  this  is  true  with  respect  to 
Denver  for  a  few  days  near  August  1.  The  probable  explanation  for 
the  disturbed  margins  from  August  to  November,  inclusive,  1914,  is 
that  the  sugar  market  was  rapidly  adancing  about  this  time  on  ac- 
count of  war  conditions  in  Europe. 

The  more  narrow  margins  between  New  York,  Detroit,  and  ban 
Francisco  are  due  to  the  fact  that  sugar  from  the  Atlantic  seaboard 
can  reach  the  natural  markets  of  Michigan  sugar  factories  upon  a 
low  freight  rate,  and  that  the  cane  sugar  refineries  in  San  Francisco 
compete  with  the  beet-sugar  factories  in  California.    To  reach  Den- 
ver cane  sugar  must  pay  an  ocean  and  rail  rate  of  71  cents  from  New 
York  or  an  all-rail  rate  of  62  cents  from  New  Orleans.    The  com- 
\  parisons  shown  in  the  table  clearly  indicate  that  the  competition  of 
>cane  sugar  from  the  eastern  refineries  and  the  presence  of  cane- 
'  sugar  refineries  in  San  Francisco  tend  to  reduce  the  price.     Ihe 
average  excess  of  the  San  Francisco  price  over  New  York  due  to  the 
competition  of  cane  sugar  was  27  cents  in  1913  and  only  12  cents  in 
1914  while  in  Denver,  where  there  is  little  cane  sugar  competition, 
the  average  excess  over  New  York  was  57  cents  in  1913  and  45  cents 
in  1914     The  average  excess  of  prices  in  Detroit  over  those  of  INew 
York  in  1914  was  48  cents,  but  as  stated  this  was  due  to  abnormal 
conditions.    The  average  excess  of  Detroit  over  New  York  for  six 
months  in  1913  was  only  37  cents. 

o-     r^ir^T    TTON^  OF  R  \W   SUGAR   AND  REFINED   GRANULATED   SUGAR   AT 
^NEWYORK?InD  MARGIN  BETWEF^N  RAW  AND  REFINED,  BY  WEEKS,  1890  TO  1914. 


DISTKIBUTION   OF  SUGAB. 


109 


Dates. 


Jan. 


1890.> 

2 

9 

16 

23 

30 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Cents. 
6.50 
6.50 
6.50 
6.50 
6.375 


Cents. 
5.75 

5.75 

5.625 

5.688 

5.625 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
0.75 

.75 

.875 
.812 
.75 


Dates. 


1890. 


Feb.  6. 

13. 

20. 

27. 
Mar.  6. 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
6.25 

6.375 

6.313 

6.313 

6.375 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
5.625 

5.625 

5.625 

5.625 

5.688 


Cents. 
0.625 

.75 

.688 

V     .688 

.687 


t  Less  2  per 


cent  for  cash,  for  granulated;  less  2§  per  cent  for  cash,  for  Cuban  centrifugal  90'  (duty  paid). 


Table  27.— QUOTATIONS   OF  RAW   SUGAR   AND   REFINED   GRANULATED   SUGAR 

AT  NEW  YORK,  ETC. — Continued. 


Dates. 


r 


t 


Apr. 


May 


< 


1890. 
Mar.   13 

20 

27 

3 

10 

17 

24 

1 

8 

15 

22 

29 

June    5 

12 

19 

26 

July    3 

10 

17 

24 

31 

Aug.    7 

14 


Sept 


Oct. 


/ 


Nov. 


> 


Dec. 


21. 
28. 

4. 
11. 
18. 
25. 

2. 

9. 
16. 
23- 
30. 

6. 
13. 
20. 
28. 

4. 
11. 
18. 
26. 
31. 


Average. 


1891. 


Jan.  8. 
15. 
22. 
29. 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
6.438 
6.313 
6.125 
6.063 
6.032 
6.188 
6.188 
6.188 
6.063 
6.032 
6.00 
6.125 
6.344 
6.781 
6.625 
6.250 
6.25 
6.281 
6.25 
6.156 
6.125 
6.063 
6.125 
6.188 
6.188 
6.50 
6.625 
6.625 
6.625 
6.625 
6.625 
6.625 
6.625 
6.50 
6.375 
6.125 
6.125 
6.125 
6.125 
6.125 
6.00 
6.00 
6.00 


6.171 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(dutv 
paid). 


Cents. 
5.688 
5.688 
5.438 
5.375 
5.375 
5.50 
5.50 
5.563 
5.563 
5.375 
5.375 
5.438 
5.50 
5.563 
5.438 
5.375 
5.375 
5.375 
5.438 
5.438 
5.50 
5.50 
5.625 
5.625 
5.688 
5.875 
6.063 
6.063 
6.00 
5.938 
5.938 
6.00 
6.00 
5.938 
5.875 
5.50 
5.50 
5.375 
5.375 
5.313 
5.25 
5.25 
5.25 


5.445 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


5. 84  5. 12 

5. 84  5. 12 

6.13  5.50 

6. 00  5. 50 

'  About  2<  per 


Cents. 
0.750 
.625 
.687 
.688 
.657 
.688 
.688 
.625 
.500 
.657 
.625 
.687 
.844 
1.218 
1.187 
.875 
.875 
.906 
.812 
.718 
.625 
.5ti3 
.50    ! 
.563 
.50 
.625 
.562 
.562 
.625 
.687 
.687 
.625 
.625 
.562 
.50 
.625 
.625 
.75 
.75 
.812 
.75 
.75 
.75 


,726 


.72 

.72 
.63 
.50 


Dates. 


1891. 
Feb.     5.  - . . 

12,... 

19..-. 

26.... 
Mar.    5 — 

12. . . . 

19.--. 

26.... 

Apr.    21... 

9..-. 

16.... 

23..-. 

30.-.. 
May     7 

14..-- 

21-... 

28.... 
June    4 

11.... 

18.--. 

25.... 

July     2.... 

9.--. 

16--.- 

23..-. 

30.... 
Aug.     6.... 

13---- 

20-... 

27.... 
Sept.   3 

10- -  -  - 

17.... 

24-... 

Oct.     1-... 

8..-- 

15. . - . 

22.--- 

29--.- 
Nov.    5 

12 

19 

25 

3 

10 

17 

24 

31 


Dec. 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
6.13 
6.37 
6.37 
6.41 
6.61 
6.37 
6.13 
6.13 
4.50 
4.50 
4.50 
4.50 
4.50 
4.375 
4.50 
4.25 
4.18 
4.125 
4.06 
4.06 
4.18 
4.25 
4.25 
4.31 
4.25 
4.25 
4.06 
4.125 
4.25 
4.18 
4.25 
4.31 
4.375 
4.375 
4.375 
4.375 
4.375 
4.06 
4.125 
4.06 
4.06 
4.25 
4.18 
4.18 
4.18 
4.00 
4.00 
4.00 


Average 

pound  duty  taken  off  April  1  1891. 


4.641 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Cents. 
5.50 
5.62 
5.62 
5.62 
5.62 
5.62 
5.56 
5.6S 
3.53 
3.625 
3.50 
3.50 
3.44 
3.25 
3.25 
3.25 
3.25 
3.375 
3.375 
3.31 
3.44 
3.375 
3.31 
3.375 
3.44 
3.31 
3.375 
3.44 
3.44 
3.44 
3.44 
3.50 
3.44 
3.44 
3.31 
3.375 
3.44 
3.27 
3.31 
3.44 
3.50 
3.50 
3.50 
3.50 
3.375 
3.31 
3.375 
3.375 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


3.863 


Gents, 
0.63 
.75 
.75 
.79 
.99 
.75 
.57 
.45 
.97 
.875 
1.00 
1.00 
1.06 
1.125 
1.25 
1.00 
.93 
.75 
.685 
.75 
.74 
.875 
.94 
.935 
.81 
.94 
.685 
.685 
.81 
.74 
.81 
.81 
.935 
.935 
1.065 
1.00 
.935 
.79 
.815 
.62 
.56 
.75 
.68 
.68 
.805 
.69 
.625 
.625 


778 


V 


1 


1 


110 


THE   BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Tablb  27.— quotations  OF  RAW  SUGAR  AND  REFINED  GRANULATED  SUGAR 

AT  NEW  YORK,  ETC.— Continued. 


Dates. 


1892 
Jan.    7 

14 

21 

28 

Feb.  4 

11 

18 

25 

Mar.  3 

10 

17 

24 

31 

Apr.  7 

14 

21 

28 

May   5 

12 

19 

26 

June  2 

9 

16 

23 

30 

July   7 

14 

21 

28 

Aug.  4 

11 

18 

25 

Sept.  1 

8 

15 

22 

29 

Oct.   6 

13 

20 

27." 

Nov.  3 

10 

17 

25 

Dec.  1 

8 


Granu- 
lated. 


4.04 

3.92 

3.92 

3.92 

3.92 

3.92 

3.92 

3.92 

4.07 

4.19 

4.29 

4.29 

4.28 

4.28 

4.28 

4.18 

4.18 

4.22 

4.22 

4.22 

4.22 

4.22 

4.28 

4.28 

4.22 

4.28 

4.22 

4.16 

4.16 

4.22 

4.23 

4.23 

4.35 

4.47 

4.71 

4.90 

4.90 

4.90 

4.90 

4.72 

4.72 

4.72 

4.72 

4.72 

4.60 

4.60 

4.60 

4.60 

4.60 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96' 
(duty 
paid). 


Cents. 
3.50 
3.47 
3.47 
3.44 
3.44 
3.44 
3.44 
3.41 
3.41 
3.375 
3.375 
3.25 
3.125 
3.125 
3.125 
3.125 
3.125 
3.125 
3.125 
3.06 
3.06 
3.06 
3.125 
3.125 
3.18 
3.125 
3.125 
3.06 
3.06 
3.125 
3.125 
3.18 
3.25 
3.375 
3.56 
3.56 
3.56 
3.625 
3.75 
3.50 
3.50 
3.44 
3.44 
3.375 
3.375 
3.375 
3.375 
3.376 
3.375 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
0.54 
.45 
.45 
.48 
.48 
.48 
.48 
.51 
.66 
.815 
.915 
1.04 
1.155 
1.155 
1.155 
1.055 
1.056 
1.095 
1.095 
1.16 
1.16 
1.16 
1.165 
1.155 
1.04 
1.155 
.995 
1.10 
1.10 
1.095 
1.105 
1.05 
1.10 
1.095 
1.15 
1.34 
1.34 
1.276 
1.15 
1.22 
1.22 
1.28 
1.28 
1.345 
1.225 
1.225 
1.225 
1.225 
1.226 


Dates. 


1892. 


Dec.  15. 
22. 
29. 


Average. 


1893. 


Jan. 


Feb. 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May 


June 


July 


Aug. 


Sept. 


Oct. 


5. 
12. 
19. 
26. 

2. 

9. 
16. 
23. 

2. 

9. 
16. 
23. 
30. 

6. 
13. 
20. 
27. 

4. 
11. 
18. 
25. 

1. 

8. 
15. 
22. 
29. 

6. 
13. 
20. 
27. 

3. 
10. 
17. 
24. 
31. 

7- 
14. 
21. 
28. 

5. 
12. 
19. 
26. 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
4.60 
4.60 
4.60 


4.346 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Cents. 
3.375 
3.44 
3.44 


4.60 
4.60 
4.60 
4.60 
4.60 
4.60 
4.54 
4.47 
4.47 
4.47 
4.47 
4.54 
4.72 
4.84 
4.84 
3.90 
5.08 
5.08 
5.20 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.21 
5.27 
5.27 
5.27 
5.27 
5.34 
5.34 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5  08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


3.311 


3.44 

3.44 

3.50 

3.50 

3.44 

3.44 

3.44 

3.375 

3.375 

3.375 

3.34 

3.50 

3.625 

3.75 

3.75 

3.875 

4.00 

4.00 

4.125 

4.00 

4.25 

4.25 

4.25 

4.50 

4.50 

4.375 

4.375 

4.375 

4.18 

3.75 

3.75 

3.75 

3.75 

3.50 

3.50 

3.50 

3.75 

3.84 

3.875 

3.875 

3.875 

4.00 

4.00 


Cents. 
1.225 
1.16 
1.16 


1.035 


1.16 

1.16 

1.10 

1.10 

1.16 

1.16 

1.10 

1.095 

1.095 

1.095 

1.13 

1.04  . 

1.095 

1.09 

1.09 

1.025 

1.08 

1.08 

1.075 

1.08 
.83 
.83 
.96 
.77 
.77 
.895 
.895 
.965 

1.16 

1.33 

1.33 

1.33 

1.33 

1.58 

1.58 

1.58 

1.33 

1.24 

1.205 

1.205 

1.205 

1.08 

1.08 


..J.I, 


DISTRIBUTION   OF  SUGAR. 


Ill 


Table  27.— QUOTATIONS   OF  RAW   SUGAR   AND   REFINED   GRANULATED   SUGAR 

AT  NEW  YORK,  ETC.— Continued. 


Dates. 


^    I- 


( 


1893. 
Nov.    2 

9.... 


Dec. 


Y 


16. 

23. 

1. 

7. 
14. 
21. 
28. 


Avers^e.. 
1894. 


Jan. 


< 


Feb. 


Mar. 


/ 


Apr. 


May 


June 


>' 


July 


Aug. 


V  I 


A 


Sept. 


4. 

11. 
18. 
25. 

1. 

8. 
15. 
23. 

1. 

8. 
15. 
22. 
29. 

5. 
12. 
19. 
26. 

3. 
10. 
17. 
24. 
31. 

7. 
14. 
21. 
28. 

5. 

12. 

19. 

26. 

2. 

9. 

16., 

23., 

30.. 

6.. 

13.. 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(dutv 
paid). 


Cents. 
4.72 

4.47 

4.47 

4.23 

4.23 

4.23 

4.23 

4.23 

4.10 


4.842 


3.74 
3.98 
4.10 
4.04 
3.98 
4.04 
4.17 
4.17 
4.17 
4.17 
4.17 
3.98 
3.98 
3.98 
3.98 
3.98 
3.98 
•3.86 
3.91 
3.91 
3.91 
3.86 
3.80 
3.98 
3.98 
3.98 
3.98 
3.98 
4.23 
4.23 
4.35 
4.47 
4.47 
4.60 
U.72 
4.72 
4.72 

1 


Cents. 
3.25 

3.25 

3.18 

3.00 

3.00 

3.00 

2.875 

2.875 

2.875 


3.689 


2.75 

2.875 

3.00 

3.00 

3.06 

3.25 

3.31 

3.31 

3.18 

3.18 

3.18 

3.00 

2.875 

2.875 

2.875 

2.75 

2.81 

2.875 

2.91 

2.81 

2.75 

2.875 

3.00 

3.125 

3.125 

3.125 

3.125 

3.18 

3.125 

3.125 

3.125 

3.375 

3.50 

3.75 

3.75 

3.75 

3.75 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


CefUs. 
1.47 

1.22 

1.29 

1.23 

1.23 

1.23 

1.355 

1.355 

1.225 


1.153 


.99 
1.105 
1.10 
1.04 
.92 
.79 
.86 
.86 
.99 
.99 
.99 
.98 
1.105 
1.105 
1.105 
1.23 
1.17 
.985 
1.00 
1.10 
1.16 
.985 
.80 
.855 
.855 
.855 
.855 
.80 
1.105 
1.105 
1.225 
1.095 
.97 
.85 
.97 
.97 
.97 


Dates. 


1894. 
Sept.  20... 

27... 


Oct. 


Nov. 


Dec. 


4. 
11. 
18. 
25. 

1. 

8. 
15. 
22. 
29. 

6. 
13. 
20. 
27. 


Average. 


1895. 


Jan. 


Feb. 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May 


June 


July 


3. 
10. 
17. 
24. 
31. 

7. 
14. 
21. 
28. 

7. 
14. 
21. 
28. 

4. 
11. 
18. 
25. 

2. 

9. 
16. 
23. 
31. 

6. 
13. 
20. 
27., 
5., 
11.. 
18.. 
25.. 

1.. 


Granu- 
lated. 


Aug. 
Including  40  per  cent  duty  from  Aug.  28, 1894. 


Cents. 
4.54 

4.41 

4.35 

4.35 

4.35 

4.35 

3.98 

4.10 

4.10 

3.98 

3.98 

3.80 

3.74 

3.74 

3.74 


4.12 


3.74 

3.74 

3.74 

3.74 

3.74 

3.68 

3.68 

3.74 

3.74 

3.80 

3.86 

3.86 

3.86 

3.86 

3.86 

3.86 

3.86 

3.98 

4.35 

4.35 

4.35 

4.35 

4.35 

4.35 

4.35 

4.35 

4.35 

4.35 

4.35 

4.35 

4.35 


Cuban 

centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Cents. 
3.75 

3.75 

3.75 

3.75 

3.50 

3.50 

3.50 

3.50 

3.50 

3.50 

3.50 

3.50 

3.25 

3.125 

3.125 


3.24 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Centt. 
0.79 

.66 

.60 

.60 

.85 

.85 

.48 

.60 

.60 

.48 

.48 

.30 

.49 

.615 

.615 


,88 


3.00 

.74 

3.00 

.74 

3.00 

.74 

3.03 

.71 

3.09 

.65 

3.125 

.555 

3.00 

.68 

3.00 

.74 

3.00 

.74 

3.00 

.80 

3.00 

.86 

3.00 

.86 

3.00 

.86 

3.00 

.86 

3.00 

.86 

3.00 

.86 

3.00 

.86 

3.125 

.855 

3.25 

1.10 

3.375 

.975 

3.375 

.975 

3.375 

.975 

3.375 

.975 

3.31 

1.04 

3.31 

1.04 

3.25 

1.10 

3.25 

1.10 

3.25 

1.10 

3.25 

1.10 

3.25 

1.10 

3.25 

1.10 

112  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Tablbs  27.— quotations  OF  RAW   SUGAR   AND  REFINED  GRANULATED   SUGAR 

AT  NEW  YORK,  ETC. — Continued. 


DISTRIBUTION   OF   SUGAR. 


113 


Dates. 


1895. 


Aug. 


Oct. 


8. 
15. 
22. 
29. 
Sept.  5. 
12. 
19. 
26. 

3. 
10. 
17. 
24. 
31. 

7. 
14. 
21. 
27. 

5. 
12. 
19. 
27. 


Nov. 


Dec. 


ill 


Average. 


1896. 


Jan. 


Feb. 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May 


June 


3. 

9- 
16. 
23- 
30. 

6. 
13. 
20. 
27. 

5. 
12. 
19. 
26. 

2. 

9. 
16. 
23. 
30. 

7. 
14- 
21. 
28. 

4. 
Il- 
ls. 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
4.35 

4.35 
4.23 
4.10 
4.16 
4.23 
4.41 
4.47 
4.53 
4.47 
4.47 
4.35 
4.23 
4.23 
4.23 
4.23 
4.35 
4.35 
4.35 
4.35 
4.72 


4.152 


4.72 
4.59 
4.59 
4.72 
4.66 
4.58 
4.65 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.84 
4.84 
4.84 
5.08 
5.20 
5.20 
5.14 
5.08 
5.08 
4.84 
4.97 
4.72 
4.78 
4.66 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96" 
(duty 
paid). 


Ceiits. 
3.31 

3.31 

3.25 

3.25 

3.25 

3.25 

3.31 

3.50 

3.56 

3.625 

3.625 

3.50 

3.40 

3.375 

3.375 

3.375 

3.375 

3.50 

3.50 

3.50 

3.75 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


3.27 


3.75 

3.75 

3.75 

3.875 

3.875 

3.875 

4.00 

4.125 

4.125 

4.125 

4.125 

4.18 

4.18 

4.18 

4.25 

4.375 

4.31 

4.25 

4.25 

4.25 

4.00 

4.00 

3.75 

3.81 

3.625 


Cents. 
1.04 

1.04 
.98 
.85 
.91 
.98 

1.10 
.97 
.97 
.845 
.845 
.85 
.83 
.855 
.855 
.855 
.975 
.85 
.85 
.85 
.97 


.882 


.97 
.84 
.84 
.845 
.775 
.705 
.65 
.595 
.595 
.595 
.595 
.66 
.66 
.66 
.83 
.825 
.89 
.89 
.83 
.83 
.84 
.97 
.97 
.97 
1.035 


Dates. 


June 
July 


Aug. 


Sept. 


Oct. 


Nov 


Dec. 


1896. 
25-... 

2... 

9.... 
16--.. 
23-..- 
30--.- 

6-..- 
13-... 
20--.- 
27. . -  - 

3.... 
10. . -  - 
17.... 
24.-.. 

1.... 

8-... 
15...- 
22. -  -  - 
29.... 

5 

12..-. 
19.... 
27..-. 

3..-. 
10--.. 
17.... 
24.... 
31.... 


Average 


1897. 


Jan.  7... 

14.. 

21.. 

28.. 
Feb.  4... 

11.. 

18-. 

25- 
Mar.4.. 

IL 

18. 

25. 
Apr.  1.. 

8.. 
•   15. 

22. 

29. 
May  6.. 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
4.47 

4.60 

4.47 

4.47 

4.35 

4.35 

4.60 

4.60 

4.47 

4.47 

4.47 

4.47 

4.47 

4.47 

4.24 

3.98 

3.86 

3.86 

3.98 

3.98 

4.23 

4.10 

4.10 

4.10 

4.10 

4.10 

4.10 

4.10 


4.532 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Cents. 
3.50 
3.50 
3.44 
3.375 
3.31 
3.31 
3.50 
3.375 
3.375 
3.375 
3.25 
3.25 
3.06 
3.00 
3.06 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 

•  3.25 
3.25 
3.44 
3.25 
3.25 
3.31 
3.25 
3.25 
3.18 
3.18 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


3.624 


4.10 

3.18 

.92 

4.10 

3.18 

.92 

3.98 

3.18 

.80 

3.98 

3.18 

.80 

3.98 

3.18 

.80 

4.10 

3.18 

.92 

4.10 

3.25 

.85 

4.10 

3.25 

.85 

3.98 

3.25 

.73 

4.10 

3.18 

^         .92 

4.23 

3.25 

.98 

4.23 

3.31 

.92 

4.47 

3.375 

1.095 

4  47 

3.375 

1.095 

4.23 

3.28 

.95 

4.23 

3.25 

.98 

4.23 

3.25 

.98 

4.29 

3.31 

.98 

Cents. 
0.97 
1.10 
1.03 
1.095 
1.04 
1.04 
1.10 
1.225 
1.095 
1.095 
1.22 
1.22 
1.41 
1.47 
1.18 
.98 
.86 
.86 
.73 
.73 
.79 
.85 
.85 
.79 
.85 
.85 
.92 
.92 


.908 


'1 


f 


Y 


< 


/ 


V 


Table  27.— QUOTATIONS  OF  RAW   SUGAR   AND  REFINED   GRANULATED   SUGAR 

AT  NEW  YORK,  ETC. — Continued. 


Dates. 


1897. 
May  13  

20 

27 

June  3 

10 

17 

24 

July  1 

8 

15 

22 

29 

Aug.  5 

12 

19 

26 

Sept.  2 

9 

16 

23 

30 

Oct.  7 

14 

21'. 

28 

Nov.4 

11 

18 

26 

Dec.  2 

9 

16 

23 

30 

Average... 


1898. 


Jan. 


Feb. 


Mar. 


6- 
13. 
20- 
27- 

3- 
10- 
17- 
24. 

3. 
10. 
17- 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
4.29 
4.23 
4.23 
4.23 
4.47 
4.47 
4.47 
4.47 
4.59 
4.59 
4.66 

14.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.815 
4.815 
4.815 
4.85 
4.85 
4.85 
4.85 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.84 
4.96 
4.96 


4.503 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(dutv 
paid). 


Cents. 
3.31 
3.25 
3.25 
3.31 
3.50 
3.50 
3.50 
3.50 
3.50 
3.625 
3.625 

«3.75 
3.75 
3.75 
3.75 
3.75 
3.75 
3.875 
3.875 
3.94 
3.94 
3.875 
3.875 
3.81 
3.81 
3.81 
3.81 
3.875 
3.875 
3.875 
3.94 
4.00 
4.125 
4.25 


3.5^7 


4.96 
4.96 
4.96 
4.84 
4.84 
4.96 
4.96 
5.02 
4.96 
4.84 
...|        4.84 

1  Including  1.95 
«  From  July  24, 


4.18 

4.18 

4.06 

4.06 

4.06 

4.  IS 

4.18 

4.18 

4.18 

4.125 

4.06 

Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
0.98 

.98 

.98 

.92 

.97 

.97 

.97 

.97 

1.09 
.%5 

1.035 
.97 
.97 
.97 
.97 
.97 
.97 
.94 
.94 
.875 
.91 
.975 
.975 

1.04 
.91 
.91 
.91 
.845 
.845 
.845 
.78 
.84 
.835 
.71 


.946 


.78 

.78 

.90 

.78 

.78 

.78 

.78 

.84 

.78 

.715 

.78 


r-o      I 


Dates. 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May 


June 


July 


Aug. 


Sept. 


Oct. 


Nov. 


De^ 


1898. 

24-... 
31.... 

7---. 

14..-. 
21.-.. 
28--.. 

5..-. 
12- -  - . 
19-.-. 
26- -  - . 

2---. 

9---- 
16-.-- 
23---- 
30-.-. 

7.... 
14.-.- 
21-..- 
28---- 

4-.-. 
11.-.- 
18.-.. 
25---. 

1.... 

8.-.. 
15- . . . 
22...- 
29.... 

6.... 
13-... 
20-... 
27.--- 

3.--. 
10- -  - . 
17-..- 
25-..- 

1.-.- 

8.--- 
15-.-- 
22... 
29 


Average. 


1899. 


Jan. 


5. 
12. 
19. 
26. 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
4.84 
4.84 
4.96 
4.90 
4.96 
5.15 
5.15 
5.  OS 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.08 
5.15 
5.21 
5.21 
5.21 
5.08 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 
4.78 
4.78 
4.72 
4.96 
4.96 
4.96 
4.96 
4.84 
4.75 
4.72 


4.965 


4.69 
4.72 
4.72 
4.72 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
4.00 

4.125 

4.125 

4.125 

4.125 

4.25 

4.18 

4.18 

4.25 

4.31 

4.31 

4.31 

4.31 

4.25 

4.25 

4.125 

4.125 

4.125 

4.125 

4.125 

4.25 

4.25 

4.31 

4.375 

4.375 

4.375 

4.31 

4.31 

4.21 

4.18 

4.25 

4.31 

4.31 

4.31 

4.44 

4.50 

4.44 

4.44 

4.44 

4.375 

4.31 


4.235 


4.31 
4.31 
4.25 
4.25 


Cents. 

a84 

.715 

.835 

.775 

.835 

.90 

.97 

.90 

.83 

.71 

.77 

.77 

.77 

.83 

.83 

.955 

.955 

.95S 

.955 

.955 

.83 

.83 

.77 

.775 

.835 

.835 

.« 

.77 

.51 

.54 

.47 

.47 

.47 

.41 

.52 

.46 

.52 

.52 

.40 

.375 

.41 


730 


.38 
.41 

.47 
.47 


i 

1 

I 


cents  per  pound  duty  from  July  24, 1897. 

1897,  duty  on  raw  sugar  was  1.685  cents  per  pound. 


H^'.^r^'ri^  ■    ■  1t<-^ 


y 


114  THE  BEET  SUGAB  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Table  27.— QUOTATIONS  OF  RAW  SUGAR  AND  REFINED  GRANULATED  SUGAR 

AT  NEW  YORK.  ETC. — Continued. 


DISTRIBUTION   OP  SUGAB. 


115 


Dates. 


Feb 

1899. 
,     2 

9 

16 

23 

Mar 

.     2 

9 

16 

23 

30 

Apr 

6 

13 

20 

27 

May 

4 

11 

18 

25 

June 

1 

8 

15 

22 

29 

July 

6 

13 

20 :.. 

27 

Aug. 

3 

10 

17 

24 

31 

Sept. 

7 

14 

21 

28 

Oct. 

5 

12 

19 

26 

Nov. 

2 

9 

16 

23 

Dec. 

1 

7 

14 

21 

28 

Average 

Grsmu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
4.72 

4.72 

4.72 

4.72 

4.72 

4.84 

4.84 

4.84 

4.84 

4.84 

4.96 

4.96 

4.96 

5.08 

5.08 

5.08 

5.08 

5.08 

5.21 

5.21 

5.21 

5.21 

5.21 

5.21 

5.21 

5.21 

5.21 

5.21 

5.21 

4.99 

4.99 

4.99 

4.925 

4.795 

4.795 

4.795 

4.795 

4.795 

4.795 

4.795 

4.795 

4.795 

4.795 

4.795 

4.795 

4.795 

4.795 

4.795 


4.919 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Cents. 
4.31 

4.31 

4.31 

4.375 

4.375 

4.41 

4.375 

4.375 

4.44 

4.50 

4.56 

4.625 

4.625 

4.75 

4.625 

4.625 

4.625 

4.62.5 

4.69 

4.69 

4.625 

4.50 

4.50 

4.44 

4.375 

4.50 

4.56 

4.56 

4.50 

4.50 

4.50 

4.44 

4.375 

4.375 

4.31 

4.31 

4.31 

4.31 

4.31 

4.31 

4.25 

4.25 

4.25 

4.25 

4.25 

4.25 

4.25 

4.25 


4.419 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
0.41 

.41 

.41 

.345 

.345 

.43 

.405 

.465 

.40 

.34 

.40 

.335 

.335 

.33 

.455 

.455 

.455 

.455 

.52 

.52 

.585 

.71 

.71 

.77 

.835 

.71 

.65 

.65 

.71 

.49 

.49 

.55 

.55 

.42 

.485 

.485 

.485 

.485 

.485 

.485 

.545 

.545 

.545 

.545 

.545 

.545 

.545 

.545 


.50 


Dates. 


1900. 


Jan. 


Feb 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May 


June 


July 


Aug. 


Sept. 


Oct. 


Nov. 


Dec. 


4. 

11. 

18. 

25. 
1. 
8. 

15. 

23. 
1. 
8. 

15. 

22. 

29. 
5. 

12. 

19. 

26. 
3. 

10. 

17. 

24. 

31. 
7., 

14., 

21.. 

28.. 

5.. 

12.. 

19.. 
26.. 

2.. 

9.. 
16.. 
23.. 
30.. 

6.. 
13.. 
20.. 
27.. 

4.. 
11.. 
18.. 
25.. 

1.. 

8.. 
15.. 
22.. 
30.. 

6.. 
13.. 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
4.75 

4.85 

4.85 

4.95 

5.00 

5.00 

5.00 

5.00 

5.00 

4.90 

4.90 

4.95 

4.95 

4.925 

4.95 

4.95 

4.95 

4.95 

4.95 

4.9S 

5.10 

5.30 

5.40 

5.50 

5.50 

5.59 

5.69 

5.79 

5.89 

5.89 

5.89 

5.86 

5.86 

5.86 

5.88 

5.88 

5.88 

5.88 

5.88 

5.49 

5.49 

5.49 

5.49 

5.49 

5.34 

5.34 

5.34 

5.265 

5.315 

5.315 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Cents. 
4.25 

4.31 

4.375 

4.375 

4.44 

4.50 

'  4.44 

4.44 

4.375 

4.31 

4.375 

4.44 

4.44 

4.375 

4.50 

4.44 

4.42 

4.47 

4.44 

4.47 

4.50 

4.56 

4.625 

4.625 

4.625 

4.69 

4.75 

4.75 

4.81 

4.875 

4.875 

4.81 

4.875 

4.875 

4.875 

4.94 

5.00 

5.00 

5.00 

4.91 

4.75 

4.75 

4.625 

4.375 

4.375 

4.375 

4.375 

4.375 

4.44 

4.41 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
0.50 
.54 
.475 
.575 
.56 
.50 
.56 
.56 
.625 
.59 
.525 
.51 
.51 
.55 
.45 
.51 
.53 
.48 
.51 
.48 
.60 
.74 
.775 
.875 
.875 
.90 
.94 
1.04 
1.08 
1.015 
1.015 
1.05 
.985 
.985 
1.005 
.94 
.88 
.88 
.88 
.58 
.74 
.74 
.865 
1.115 
.965 
.965 
.965 
.89 
.876 
.905  . 


f 


< 


/ 


■i      % 


V 


k 


Table  27.— QUOTATIONS  OF  RAW  SUGAR  AND  REFINED  GRANULATED  SUGAB 

AT  NEW  YORK,  ETC. — Continued. 


Dates. 

Granu- 
lated. 

Cuban 

centrifu- 

.gals  96° 

(duty 

paid). 

Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 

Dates. 

Granu- 
lated. 

Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 

Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 

1900. 
Dec    20 

Cents. 
5.315 

5.315 

Cents. 
4.376 

4.376 

Cents. 
0.94 

.94 

1 

1               1901. 
Nov.    7 

Cents. 
4.75 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.46 

4.37 

Cents. 
3.75 

3.72 

3.69 

3.75 

3.75 

3.75 

3.75 

3.66 

Cents. 
1.00 

27      

14 

.93 

21 

.96 

Average 

6.32 

4.566 

.764 

29 

.90 
90 

1901. 

6.24 
5.34 
5.34 
6.24 
6.24 
6.24 
6.24 
5.24 
5.24 
5.24 
5.00 
.6.00 
5.00 
6.00 
6.10 
6.20 
5.20 
5.20 
5.29 
5.29 
6.29 
5.22 
5.22 
5.22 
5.22 
6.215 
6.215 
5.216 
5.145 
6.145 
5.145 
5.10 
5.10 
5.00 
6.00 
5.00 
6.00 
6.00 
6.00 
4.85 
4.85 
4.85 
4.86 
4.86 

4.376 

4.375 

4.375 

4.25 

4.26 

4.26 

4.25 

4.22 

4.19 

4.06 

4.00 

4.03 

4.03 

4.06 

4.10 

4.19 

4.19 

4.25 

4.28 

4.28 

4.28 

4.26 

4.25 

4.26 

4.26 

4.25 

4.25 

4.19 

4.15 

4.19 

4.16 

4.125 

4.00 

4.00 

3.81 

3.75 

3.75 

3.75 

3.76 

3.75 

3.75 

3.75 

3.81 

3.81 

.866 
.965 
.966 
.99 

•  99 

•  99 
.99 

1.02 

1.05 

1.18 

1.00 

.97 

.97 

.94 

1.00 

1.01 

1.01 

.96 

1.01 

1.01 

1.01 

.97 

.97 

.97 

.97 

.966 

.965 

1.025 

.995 

.966 

.986 

.976 

1.10 

1.00 

1.19 

1.25 

1.25 

1.25 

1.25 

1.10 

1.10 

1.10 

1.04 

1.04 

12 

.90 

Jan.     3 

19 

.71 

10 

26 

.71 

•         17 

Average — 

1902. 
Jan.     2 

24 1 

31 

6.05 

4.047 

1.003 

=™ 

Feb.    7 

4.48 

4.48 

4.39 

4.485 

4.485 

4.485 

4.485 

4.535 

4.535 

4.485 

4.485 

4.485 

4.535 

4.51 

4.51 

4.51 

4.51 

4.46 

4.46 

4.41 

4.41 

4.41 

4.41 

4.45 

4.41 

4.41 

4.41 

4.41 

4.41 

4.41 

4.41 

4.41 

4.41 

4.41 

4.41 

4.41 

4.41 

4.45 

3.625 

3.56 

3.375 

3.50 

3.69 

3.69 

3.625 

3.625 

3.625 

3.375 

3.40 

3.44 

3.625 

3.625 

3.375 

3.375 

3.44 

3.50 

3.50 

3.50 

3.44 

3.44 

3.44 

3.50 

3.50 

3.31 

3.375 

3.31 

3.31 

3.375 

3.375 

3.40 

3.40 

3.375 

3.375 

3.41 

3.50 

3.47 

14       

.855 

21 

9 

.92 

28 

16 

1.015 

Mar.    7 

23 

.985 

14          

30 

.795 

21     

Feb.    6 

.7A5 

28        

13 

.86 

Apr.    4 r 

20 

.91 

11 

27 

.91 

18 

Mar.    6 

1.11 

25        .  .      .. 

•  13 

1.085 

May     2 

20 

1.045 

9 

27 

.91 

16         

Apr.    3 

.885 

23 

10 

1.135 

81 

17 

1.135 

Juno    6  ^ . . , 

24 

1.07 

13 

May    1 

.96 

20 

8 

.96 

27 

15 

91 

July     3 

22 

.97 

11 

29 

.97 

18 

June    5 

.97 

25 

12 

.05 

Aug.    1 

19 

.91 

8 

26 

1.10 

15 

July    3 

1.035 

22 

10 

1.10 

29 

17 

1.10 

Sept.    5 

24 

1.035 

12 

31 

1.035 

20 

Aug.    7 

1.01 

26 

14 

1.01 

Oct.     3 

21 

1  035 

10 

28 

1.085 

17 

Sept.   4 

1.00 

24 

11 

.91 

31 

18 

.96 

^;»^_ 


116 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES. 


DISTRIBUTION   OF  SUGAE. 


117 


\\\ 


Table  27.— QUOTATIONS   OF  RAW   SUGAR   AND   REFINED   GRANULATED   SUGAR 

AT  NEW  YORK,  ETC.— Continued. 


Dates. 

Granu- 
lated. 

Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 

Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 

Dates. 

Granu- 
lated. 

Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 

Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 

1902. 
Sept.  25 

Cents. 
4.45 
4.41 
4.41 
4.41 
4.41 
4.41 
4.31 
4.21 
4.41 
4.50 
4.60 
4.70 
4.60 
4.55 
4.55 

Genu. 
3.50 

3.50 

3.50 

3.56 

3.625 

3.625 

3.625 

3.69 

3.81 

3.875 

3.97 

3.94 

3.94 

3.94 

3.875 

Ccnls. 
0.95 
.91 
.91 
.85 
.785 
.785 
.685 
.52 
.60 
.625 
.63 
.76 
.66 
.61 
.675 

1903. 
Aug.    6 

Cents. 
4.875 
4.775 
4.825 
4.825 
4.825 
4.825 
4.775 
4.775 
4.775 
4.55 
4.55 
4.55 
4.50 
4.50 
4.60 
4.45 
4.36 
4.36 
4.36 
4.36 
4.36 
4.31 

Cents. 
3.72 

3.72 

3.81 

3.875 

3.875 

3.875 

3.875 

3.91 

3.91 

3.86 

3.875 

3.875 

3.875 

3.81 

3.81 

3.75 

3.75 

3.69 

3.625 

3.625 

3.56 

»3.47 

Cents. 
1.166 

Oct.      2 

13 

1.055 

9 

20. 

1.015 

16 

27 

.95 

23 

Sept.   3 

.95 

30 

10 

.96 

Nov.    6 

17 

.90 

13 

24 

.865 

20 

Oct.     1 

.865 

28 

8 

.70 

Dec.    4 

15 

.675 

11 

22 

.675 

18 

29 

.625 

24 

Nov.    5 

.69 

31 

12 

.69 

19 

4.455 

3.542 

.913 

.70 

Average 

27 

.61 

4.55 

4.68 

4.68 

4.68 

4.55 

4.65 

4.58 

4.625 

4.675 

4.675 

4.625 

4.625 

4.55 

4.55 

4.675 

4.75 

4.76 

4.75 

4.725 

4.726 

4.70 

4.70 

4.725 

4.725 

4.725 

4.675 

4.675 

4.775 

4.876 

4.875 

3.875 

3.875 

3.81 

3.69 

3.625 

3.69 

3.75 

3.76 

3.78 

3.75 

3.72 

3.625 

3.66 

3.60 

3.59 

3.69 

3.69 

3.69 

3.69 

3.69 

3.625 

3.59 

3.59 

3.59 

3.56 

3.56 

3.66 

3.69 

3.69 

3.66 

.676 
.805 
.87 

.926 
.86 
.83 
.875 
.895 
.926 
.906 
1.00 
.99 
1.05 
1.085 
1.06 
1.06 
1.06 
1.035 
1.036 
1.075 
1.11 
1.136 
1.136 
1.165 
1. 115  • 
1.116 
1.085 
1.185 
1.216 

Dec.    3 

.67 

1903. 
Jan.     8 

10 

.735 

17 

.735 

15 

24 

22 

.80 

31 

.84 

29 

Average 

1904. 
Jan.   7 

Feb.    5 

4.638 

3.72 

11 

.918 

19 

4.36 
4.36 
4. 31', 
4.20 
4.26 
4.20 
4.26 
4.26 
4.31 
4.41 
4.50 
4.50 
4.50 
4.50 
4.40 
4.40 
4.55 
4.55 
4.55 
4.76 
4.80 
4.80 
4.75 

3.47 
3.35 
3.31 
3.31 
3.35 
3.35 
3.35 
3.38 
3.44 
3.44 
3.50 

3.eo 

3.67 
3.67 
3.61 
3.54 
3.70 
3.73 
3.75 
3.88 
3.95 
3.95 
3.875 

26 

.89 

Mar.    5 

14 

1.01 

12 

21 

1.05 

19 

28 

.95 

26 

Feb.  4 

.91 

Apr.    2 

11 

.91 

9 

18 

.91 

16 

25 

.88 

23 

Mar,  3 

.87 

30 

10 

.97 

May    7 

17 

1.00 

14 

24 

.90 

21 

31 

.83 

28 

Apr.  7 

.83 

JuTif»    4 

14 

.79 

11 

21 ! 

28 

May  5 1 

12                      ' 
'■^ 

19 i 

^ 

June  2 j 

9 i 

.m 

18. i 

.85 

25 

.82 

July    2 

.80 

9 

.87 

16 

.85 

23 

.85 

30 

.875 

I  Since  Dec.  27, 1903,  sugar  imported  from  Cuba  has  been  allowed  a  concession  of  20  per  cent  and  assessed 
1.348  cents  per  pound  duty. 


Table  27.— QUOTATIONS  OF  RAW  SUGAR   AND  REFINED   GRANULATED   SUGAR 

AT  NEW  YORK,  ETC. — Continued. 


Dates. 


1904. 


June  16. 

23. 

30. 

July  7.. 

14.. 

21.. 

28.. 

Aug.  4.. 

11.. 

18.. 

25.. 

Sept.    1. 

8. 

15. 

22. 

29. 

Oct.  6... 

13.. 

20.. 

27.. 

Nov.  3. . 

10.. 

17.. 

23.. 

Dec.  1.. 

8.. 

15.. 

22.. 

29.. 


Average. 


1905. 


Jan. 


Feb. 


Mar. 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
4.75 

4.75 

4.75 

4.85 

4.85 

4.85 

4.95 

5.00 

5.00 

4.95 

4.95 

5.00 

5.00 

4.95 

4.95 

5.00 

4.90 

4.90 

4.80 

4.80 

5.00 

5.26 

5.30 

5.30 

5.30 

5.40 

5.50 

5.60 

5.60 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96' 
(duty 
paid). 


4.7837 


6 6.70 

12 6.80 

19 5.90 

26 6.00 

2 6.00 

9 5.90 

16 6.90 

23 5.90 

2 5.90 

9.... 6.90 

16 5.90 

23 5.90 

30 5.90 

Apr.    6 5.90 

13 5.90 

20 5.90 

27 6.90 

May    4 5.90 

87731—17 ^9 


Cents. 
3.84 

3.94 

3.94 

3.94 

3.94 

3.94 

3.94 

4.06 

4.125 

4.25 

4.25 

4.31 

4.31 

4.31 

4.25 

4.31 

4.29 

4.25 

4.25 

4.22 

4.41 

4.41 

4.625 

4.75 

4.75 

4.75 

4.875 

4.875 

4.875 


3.98391 


4.875 

5.06 

5.24 

5.25 

5.26 

4.94 

4.94 

5.06 

5.125 

5.06 

4.88 

4.84 

4.81 

4.94 

4.88 

4.72 

4.625 

4.625 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
0.91 

.81 
.81 
.91 
.91 
.91 
1.01 
.94 
.875 
.70 
.70 
.69 
.69 
.64 
.70 
.69 
.61 
.65 
.55 
.58 
.59 
.84 
.675 
.55 
.55 
.65 
.625 
.025 
.725 


Dates. 


1905. 


June 


July 


Aug. 


7998 


0.825 

.74 

.66 

.75 

.75 

.96 

.96 

.84 

.775 

.84 
1.02 
1.06 
1.09 

.96 
1.02 
1.18 
1.276 
1.275  I 


May  11. 
18. 
25. 
1. 
8. 
15. 
22. 
29. 
6. 
13. 
20. 
27. 
3. 
10. 
17. 
24. 
31. 
7. 
14. 
21. 
28. 
5. 
12. 
19. 
26.. 
2.. 
9.. 
16.. 
23.. 
29.. 
7.. 
14.. 
21.. 
28.. 


Sept 


Oct. 


Nov. 


A/©C« 


Average. 


1906. 


Jan. 


Feb. 


Mar. 


4. 
11. 
18. 
25. 

1. 

8. 
15. 
21- 

1. 

8. 
15. 
22. 
29. 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
5.70 

5.50 

5.60 

5.60 

6.60 

5.60 

5.36 

5.25 

5.26 

6.16 

5.05 

4.90 

6.05 

5.10 

5.10 

5.10 

5.00 

5.00 

4.90 

4.65 

4.56 

4.55 

4.55 

4.45 

4.46 

4.35 

4.35 

4.36 

4.45 

4.45 

4.45 

4.45 

4.45 

4.45 


5.247 


Cuban 

centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid).. 


Cents. 
4.50 

4.34 

4.375 

4.375 

4.375 

4.25 

4.31 

4.25 

4.19 

4.00 

4.00 

4.06 

4.06 

4.125 

>1.125 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

3.875 

3.625 

3.69 

3.61 

3.625 

3.58 

3.50 

3.50 

3.44 

3.44 

3.55 

3.56 

3.56 

3.625 

3.626 

3.625 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
L2Q 

L16 

L225 

1.225 

1.225 

1.35 

1.04 

1.00 

1.065 

1.155 

LOS 

.M 

.90 

.97 

.97 

LIO 

LOO 

LOO 

L025 

L025 

.86 

.94 

.925 

.87 

.95 

.85 

.91 

.91 

•   .00 


.825 
.825 
.825 


4.267 


.98 


4.45 

3.625 

.825 

4.55 

3.75 

.70 

4.35 

3.626 

.725 

4.35 

3.56 

.79 

4.36 

3.50 

.85 

4.35 

3.36 

.99 

4.30 

3.36 

.9* 

4.30 

3.36 

.94 

4.35 

3.39 

.90 

4.45 

3.44 

LOl 

4.45 

3.52 

.93 

4.46 

3.56 

.89 

4.45 

3.50 

.05 

i 


i 


< 


|l[ 


118  THE  BEET  SUGAE  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Table  27.— QUOTATIONS   OF  RAW   SUGAR   AND  REFINED   GRANULATED   SUGAR 

AT  NEW  YORK,  ETC. — Continued. 


»  IT 


DISTEIBUTION  OF  SUGAB. 


119 


Dates. 


3906. 
Apr.    6 

12 

19 

26 

May     3 

10 

17 

24 

31 

June    7 

14 

21 

28 

July     5 

12 

19 

26 

Aug.    2 

9 

16 

23 

30 

Sept.    6 

13 

20 

27 

4 

11 

18 

25 

1 

8 , 

15 , 

22 

28 , 

Dec.     6 

13 

20 

27 


Oct. 


Nov. 


Average. 


1907. 


Jan.  3. 


Feb. 


10. 
17. 
24. 
31. 
7. 
14. 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
4.55 
4.45 
4.40 
4.30 
4.40 
4.45 
4.35 
4.35 
4.35 
4.45 
4.45 
4.45 
4.45 
4.55 
4.55 
4.45 
4.65 
4.65 
4.75 
4.75 
4.65 
4.65 
4.65 
4.75 
4.75 
4.75 
4.55 
4.65 
4.65 
4.65 
4.55 
4.55 
4.55 
4.55 
4.55 
4.62 
4.62 
4.62 
4.62 


4.516 


4.62 
4.50 
4.62 
4.60 
4.65 
4.50 
4.55 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Cents. 
3.55 
3.48 
3.42 
3.375 
3.48 
3.48 
3.42 
3.42 
3.45 
3.47 
3.50 
3.50 
3.61 
3.75 
3.72 
3.72 
3.75 
3.80 
3.875 
3.875 
3.94 
4.00 
4.00 
4.09 
4.09 
4.06 
4.00 
4.00 
4.00 
4.00 
3.88 
3.81 
3.81 
3.81 
3.84 
3.84 
3.875 
3.875 
3.58 


3.69 


3.56 
3.56 
3.50 
3.48 
3.48 
3.42 
3.42 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
1.00 
.97 
.98 
.925 
.92 
.97 
.93 
.93 
.90 
.98 
.95 
.95 
.84 
.80 
.83 
.73 
.90 
.85 
.875 
.875 
.71 
.65 
.65 
.66 
.66 
.69 
.55 
.65 
.65 
.65 
.67 
.74 
.74 
.74 
.71 
.78 
.745 
.745 
1.04 


.826 


1.06 
.94 
1.12 
1.12 
1.17 
1.08 
1.13 


Dates. 


1907. 


Feb. 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May 


June 


21. 
28. 

7. 
14. 
21. 
28. 

4. 
11. 
18. 
25. 
2.. 
9.. 
16. 
23. 
29. 

6. 
13. 
20. 
27. 


July  3. 


Aug. 


Sept 


Oct. 


Nov. 


Dec. 


11. 
18. 
25. 

1. 

8. 
15. 
22. 
29. 

6. 
12. 
19. 
26. 

3. 
10. 
17. 
24. 
31. 
7.. 
14. 
21. 
27. 

5. 
12. 
19. 
26. 


Average. 


Granu- 
lated. 


1908. 


Jan.     2. 
9. 


Cents. 
4.55 

4.55 

4.55 

4.55 

4.55 

4.55 

4.55 

4.65 

4.65 

4.60 

4.60 

4.70 

4.85 

4.85 

4.85 

4.85 

4.85 

4.85 

4.85 

4.85 

4.75 

4.75 

4.70 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.65 

4.60 

4.60 

4.60 

4.55 

4.55 

4.55 

4.55 


4.65 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Cents. 
3.38 

3.42 

3.51 

3.50 

3.51 

3.58 

3.61 

3.735 

3.765 

3.73 

3.765 

3.83 

3.86 

3.92 

3.90 

3.84 

3.73 

3.71 

3.876' 

3.835 

3.835 

3.835 

3.94 

3.94 

3.94 

3.89 

3.89 

3.92 

3.92 

3.95 

3.95 

3.95 

3.95 

3.95 

3.90 

3.90 

3.90 

3.90 

3.80 

3.70 

3.625 

3.625 

3.85 

3.85 

3.85 


3.753 


4.55 
4.75 


3.85 
3.94 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
1.17 

1.13 

1.04 

1.05 

1.04 

.97 

.94 

.915 

.885 

.87 

.835 

.87 

.99 

.93 

.95 

1.01 

1.12 

1.14 

.975 

1.015 

.915 

.915 

.76 

.71 

.71 

.76 

.76 

.73 

.73 

.70 

.70 

.70 

.70 

.70 

.75 

.75 

.75 

.75 

.80 

.90 

.975 

.925 

.70 

.70 

.70 


.897 


( 


< 


< 


->      * 


y 


Table  27.— QUOTATIONS  OF  RAW   SUGAR   AND  REFINED   GRANULATED   SUGAR 

AT  NEW  YORK,  ETC. — Continued. 


Dates. 


< 


.70 
.81 


Jan. 

1908. 
16 

23 

30 

Feb. 

6 

13 

20 

' 

27 

Mar 

5 

12 

19 

26 

Apr. 

2 

9 

16 

23 

30 

May 

7 

14 

21 

28 

June 

4 

11 

18 

25 

July 

2 

9 

16 

23 

30 

Aug. 

6 

13 

20 

27 

Sept. 

3 

10 

17 

24..... 

Oct. 

1 

8 

15 . 

22 

29 

Nov. 

5 

12 

19 

25 

Dec. 

3 

10 

17..... 

Granu- 
lated. 


CerUs. 
4.75 

4.76 

4.76 

4.75 

4.66 

4.55 

4.66 

4.75 

4.85 

5.06 

6.25 

6.26 

6.25 

5.35 

5.36 

6.35 

5.15 

6.35 

5.36 

5.20 

6.20 

6.20 

5.26 

6.25 

5.26 

6.26 

5.25 

6.26 

6.15 

6.05 

5.06 

6.06 

4.75 

4.95 

4.96 

4.95 

4.96 

4.95 

4.86 

4.86 

4.76 

4.86 

4.75 

4.60 

4.56 

4.55 

4.56 

4.65 

4.60 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


CeiUs. 
3.92 

3.80 

3.76 

3.75 

3.67 

3.67 

3.885 

3.89 

4.05 

4.126 

4.36 

4.36 

4.36 

4.36 

4.42 

4.42 

4.36 

4.36 

4.24 

4.27 

4.36 

4.40 

4.31 

4.25 

4.39 

4.39 

4.36 

4.26 

4.25 

4.125 

4.08 

4.08 

3.90 

3.96 

3.90 

3.96 

3.98 

3.98 

3.98 

3.96 

4.04 

3.98 

3.96 

3.94 

3.94 

3.94 

3.92 

3.86 

3.77 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
0.83 

.96 

1.00 

1.00 

.98 

.88 

.765 

.86 

.80 

.92 

.89 

.89 

.89 

.995 

.93 

.93 

.79 

.99 

1.11 

.93 

.84 

.80 

.94 

1.00 

.86 

.86 

.89 

1.00 

.90 

.925 

.97 

.97 

.85 

.99 

1.06 

1.00 

.97 

.97 

.87 

.89 

.71 

.87 

.80 

.66 

.61 

.61 

.63 

.69 

.83 


Dates. 


1908. 


Dec.  23. 
30. 


Average. 


1909. 
Jan.   7 

14 

21 

28 

Feb.   4.... 

10.... 

18.... 

25.... 
Mar.   4 

11.... 

18.... 

25.... 

Apr.   1 

7.... 

15.... 

22.... 

29.... 
May  6 

13 

20 

27 

June  3 

10.... 

17.... 

24.... 
July  1 

8..... 

15 

22 

29 

Aug.   6 

12.... 

19.... 

26.... 

Sept.  2 

9.... 

16.... 

23.... 

30.... 
Oct.   7 

14....' 

21 

28 


Granu- 
lated. 

Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 

Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

4.60 

3.70 

0.80 

4.50 

3.67 

i           .83 

4.940 

4.064 

.876 

4.45 

3.73 

.72 

4.50 

3.73 

.77 

4.50 

3.67 

.» 

4.60 

3.67 

.8$ 

4.60 

3.64 

.8& 

4.50 

3.61 

.» 

4.30 

3.61 

.69 

4.40 

3.735 

.66& 

4.45 

3.736 

.71& 

4.56 

3.80 

.75 

4.70 

3.92 

.78 

4.70 

3.92 

.78 

4.80 

3.985 

.815 

4.80 

3.985 

.815 

4.80 

3.92 

.88 

4.80 

3.86 

.94 

4.90 

3.92 

.98 

4.90 

3.86 

1.04 

4.75 

3.92 

.83 

4.70 

3.96 

.76 

4.80 

3.92 

.88 

4.80 

3.89 

.91 

4.60 

3.86 

.74 

4.70 

3.92 

.78 

4.75 

3.92 

.83 

4.70 

3.92 

.78 

4.70 

3.92 

.78 

4.70 

3.92 

.78 

4.70 

3.96 

.75 

4.80 

3.985 

.815 

4.80 

4.05 

.75 

4.80 

4.08 

.72 

4.80 

4.11 

.69 

4.90 

4.11 

.79 

4.90 

4.17 

.73 

4.90    ' 

4.20 

.70 

6.00    j 

4.21 

.79 

4.85 

4.235 

.615 

4.85 

4.235 

.615 

4.86    1 

4.235 

.615 

4.90 

4.27 

.63 

4.90 

4.30 

.60 

4.90    ! 

4.30 

.60 

120  THE  BEET   SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

Table  27.— QUOTATIONS  OF  RAW  SUGAR   AND  REFINED  GRANULATED   SUGAR 

AT  NEW  YORK,  ETC.— Continued. 


DISTRIBUTION   OF   SUGAR. 


121 


Dates. 


Nov 

1909. 
.    4 

11 

18 

24 

Dec 

2 

9 

16 

23 

30 

Jan. 

Average 

1910. 

6 

13 

20 

27 

Feb. 

3 

10 

17 

24 

Mar. 

3 

10 

17 

23 

31 

Apr. 

7 

14 

21 

28 

Mav 

5 

12 

19 

26 

June 

2 

9 

16 

23 

30 

July 

7 

14 

21 

28 

Aug. 

4 

11 

18 

25 

Sept. 

1 

8 

16 

Granu- 
lated. 


CenU. 
4.95 

5.00 

5.00 

5.00 

5.00 

5.00 

5.00 

4.80 

4.80 


4.762 


4.80 

4.90 

4.90 

4.90 

4.90 

4.90 

4.90 

5.00 

5.10 

5.20 

5.20 

5.20 

5.10 

5.10 

5.05 

5.10 

5.10 

5.10 

5.20 

5.20 

5.20 

4.95 

5.10 

5.10 

5.10 

5.00 

5.05 

5.05 

5.10 

5.10 

5.05 

5.10 

5.10 

5.20 

5.20 

5.00 

5.00 


Cuban 

centnfu- 

gals  96° 

(dutv 

paid). 


Centf. 
4.30 

4.45 

4.42 

4.36 

4.33 

4.315 

4.17 

4.02 

4.02 


4.005 


4.02 

4.11 

4.  OS 

4  08 

4.17 

4.11 

4.20 

4.36 

4.39 

4.36 

4.36 

4.36 

4.36 

4.36 

4.36 

4.30 

4.30 

4.30 

4.24 

4.24 

4.27 

4.24 

4.24 

4.17 

4.24 

4.30 

4.33 

4.30 

4.36 

4.36 

4.36 

4.39 

4.42 

4.45 

4.425 

4.36 

4.36 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
0.65 

.55 

.58 

.64 

.67 

.685 

.83 

.78 
.78 


.757 


0.78 
.79 
.82 
.82 
.73 
.79 
.70 
.64 
.71 
.84 
.84 
.84 
.74 
.74 
.69 
.80 
.80 
.80 
.96 
.96 
.93 
.71 
.86 
.93 
.86 
.70 
.72 
.75 
.74 
.74 
.69 
.71 
.68 
.75 
.775 
.64 
.64 


Dates. 


1910. 
Sept.  22 — 

29.... 


Oct. 


Nov 


Dec. 


Jan. 


Feb, 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May 


June 


July 


6. 
13. 
20. 
27. 

3. 
10. 
17. 
23. 

1. 

8. 
15. 
22. 
29. 


Aug. 


Average. 

1911. 
5 

12 

19 

26 

2 

9 

16 

23 

2 

9 

16 

23 

30 

6 

12 

20 

27 

4 

11 

18 

25 

1 

8 

15 

22 

29 

6 

13 

20 

27 

3 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
5.00 

5.00 

4.95 

4.85 

4.75 

4.70 

4.55 

4.55 

4.55 

4.55 

4.55 

4.75 

4.75 

4.75 

4.75 


4.966 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Cents. 
4.24 
4.05 
3.95 
3.90 
3.85 
3.86 
3.80 
3.86 
3.90 
3.90 
3.93 
4.05 
4.00 
3.985 
3.985 


4.19 


4.75 

3.86 

4.75 

3.675 

4.60 

3.515 

4.60 

3.42 

4.55 

3.45 

4.55 

3.48 

4.55 

3.545 

4.55 

3.67 

4.55 

3.73 

4.65 

3.76 

4.75 

3.83 

4.75 

3.92 

4.75 

3.86 

4.655 

3.86 

4.606 

3.86 

4.802 

3.92 

4.802 

3.92 

4.802 

3.795 

4.802 

3.86 

4.802 

3.86 

4.802 

3.86 

4.802 

3.86 

4.90 

3.86 

4.90 

3.89 

4.90 

3.98 

4.90 

3.98 

4.90 

4.05 

5.047 

4.23 

5.047 

4.36 

5.341 

4.61 

5.537 

4.61 

Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 

0.76 
.95 

1.00 
.95 
.90 
.84 
.75 
.69 
.65 
.65 
.62 
.70 
.  75 
.765 
.765 


776 


C.89 
1.075 
1.085 
1.18 
1.10 
1.07 
1.005 
.88 
.82 
.89 
.92 
.83 
.89 
.795 
.746 
.882 
.882 
1.007 
.942 
.942 
.942 
.942 
1.04 
1.01 
.92 
.92 
.85 
.817 
.687 
.731 
.927 


9 


Table  27.— QUOTATIONS  OF  RAW   SUGAR   AND  REFINED   GRANULATED  SUGAR 

AT  NEW  YORK,  ETC. — Continued. 


T 

7 

Dates. 

Granu- 
lated. 

Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 

Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 

Dates. 

Granu- 
lated. 

Cuban 

centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(dutv 
paid). 

Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined - 

1911. 
An«r  10                

Cents, 
5.537 

5.635 

5.831 

6.125 

6.37 

6.615 

6.615 

6.615 

6.615 

6.615 

6.615 

6.566 

6.37 

6.174 

6.076 

5.978 

5.88 

5.537 

5.635 

5.635 

5.635 

CenU, 
4.8675 

4.92 

5.00 

5.25 

5.75 

5.75 

5.92 

5.965 

5.80 

5.96 

5.96 

5.735 

5.30 

5.12 

5.12 

5.0625 

5.0625 

4.9375 

4.875 

4.715 

4.65 

Cents. 
0.6695 

.715 

.831 

.875 

.62 

.865 

.695 

.65 

.815 

.655 

.655 

.831 

1.07 

1.054 

.956 

.9155 

.8175 

.5995 

.76 

.92 

.985 

1912. 
June  27 

CenU. 

4.851 

4.851 

4.851 

4.90 

4.90 

4.90 

4.90 

4.851 

4.90 

4.998 

4.998 

4.998 

4.998 

4.949 

4.851 

4.802 

4.802 

4.802 

4.802 

4.802 

4.802 

4.802 

4.802 

4.802 

4.802 

4.802 

4.802 

Cents. 
3.83 
3.77 
3.80 
3.985 
4.05 
4.05 
4.05 
4.05 
4.11 
4.235 
4.36 
4.36 
4.30 
4.17 
4.14 
4.11 
4.11 
4.05 
4.05 
4.05 
4.05 
4.05 
4.05 
4.05 
3.92 
3.92 
3.92 

Cents. 
1.021 

17            .     ... 

July     3 

1.081 

24            

11 

1.051 

31 

18 

.915 

Sent     7 

25 

.85 

14              .  .. 

Aug.    1 ■ 

.85 

21    

8 

.85 

28        

15 

.80 

Oct      5        

22 

.79 

11               

29 

.763 

19               

Sept.   5 

.638 

26        

12 

.638 

Nov     2        

19 

.698 

9 

26 

.779 

16        

Oct.     3 

.711 

) 

23           .  .  .. 

10 

.692 

b 

29 

17 

.692 

Dec.     7    

24 

.752 

14    

31 

.752 

• 

21        

Nov.    7 

.752 

28 

14 

.752 

-      Average 

1912. 
Jan.     4 

21 

.752 

5.345 

4.453 

.892 

...  ... 

27 

.752 

T)pr«       ."i 

.752 

5.537 
5.39 
5.39* 
5.194 
'    5.194 
5.39 
5.586 
5.684 
5.684 
5.684 
5.488 
5.439 
5.341 
5.145 
5.0% 
5.096 
4.949 
4.949 
4.949 
4.90 
4.90 
4.998 
5.096 
4.949 
4.998 

4.42 
4.42 
4.45 
4.39 
4.41 
4.55 
4.735 
4.80 
4.67 
.  4.52 
4.52 
4.42 
4.36 
4.30 
4.11 
4.11 
3.985 
4.05 
3.985 
3.92 
3.92 
3.985 
3.92 
3.92 
3.86 

1.117 

.97 

.94 

.804 

.784 

.84 

.851 

.884 
1.014 
1.164 

.968 
1.019 

.981 

.845 

.986 

.986 

.964 

.899 

.964 

.98     • 

.98 
1.013 
1.176 
1.029 
1.138 

12 

.882 

19 

.882 

.    11 

26 

.882 

IS 

!                  

Average 

1913. 
Jan.     2 

lo 

25 

5.041 

4.162 

.879 

TPoVi        1 

reo.    1 

8 

4.802 
4.557 
4.459 
4.459 
4.214 
4.165 
4.214 
4.165 
4.165 
4.214 
4.214 
4.165 
4.165 
4.165 
4.067 
4.067 
4.116 
4.116 
4.116 

3.73 
3.48 
3.48 
3.48 
3.48 
3.48 
3.48 
3.48 
3.51 
3.54 
3.68 
3.58 
3.48 
3.45 
3.36 
3.36 
3.39 
3.39 
3.36 

/ 

15      

1.072 

21     

9 

1.077 

29 

16 

.979 

Mar.    7 

23 

.979 

14     

30 

.734 

• 

21 

Feb     6 

.685 

28 

13 

.734 

k 

Apr.    3 

20 

.685 

•V 

11. 

27 

.655 

18 

Mar.    6 

.674 

25 

13 

.634 

m 

May     2 

19 

.585 

9 

27 

.6&) 

■ 

16 

Apr.    3 

.n5 

23 

10 

.707 

i 

29..' 

17 

1           .707 

June    6 

24 

.726 

• 

13 

20 

May     1 

8 

.726 
.756 

1 


_& m£ •    / 


122 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Table  27.— QUOTATIONS  OF  RAW  SUGAR   AND  REFINED  GRANULATED  SUGAR 

AT  NEW  YORK.  ETC. — Continued. 


Dates. 


1913. 
May  15 

22 

28 

June    5 

12 

19 

26 

July     2 

10 

17 

24 

31 

Aug.    7 

14 

21 

28 

Sept.  4 

11 

18 

25 

Oct.     2 

9 

16 

23 

30 

Nov.    6 , 

13 

20 

26 

Dec.    4 

11 

18 , 

24 

31 

Average.. 

1914. 
Jan.     8 .\ 

15 , 

22 

29 

Feb.    6 

11 

19 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
4.116 
4.018 
4.116 
4.116 
4.116 
4.116 
4.214 
4.410 
4.410 
4.508 
4.508 
4.508 
4.606 
4.606 
4.696 
4.606 
4.508 
4.508 
4.508 
4.606 
4.361 
4.165 
4.067 
4.165 
4.165 
4.214 
4.214 
4.214 
4.214 
4.165 
4.165 
4.116 
4.018 
3.92 


4.278 


3.92 
3.92 
3.92 
3.92 
3.92 
3.92 
3.92 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Cents. 
3.30 
3.30 
3.33 
3.33 
3.33 
3.33 
3.36 
3.48 
3.54 
3.57 
3.54 
3.64 
3.73 
3.73 
3.73 
3.76 
3.76 
3.76 
3.73 
3.61 
3.45 
3.48 
3.48 
3.48 
3.61 
3.54 
3.64 
3.70 
3.61 
3.54 
3.54 
3.23 
3.23 
3.23 


3.506 


3.23 

3.29 

3.355 

3.48 

3.48 

3.48 

3.42 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
0.816 

.718 

.786 

.786 

.786 

.786 

.854 

.93 

.87 

.938 

.968 

.868 

.876 

.876 

.876 

.846 

.748 

.748 

.778 

.996 

.911 

.685 

.587 

.685 

.555 

.674 

.574 

.514 

.604 

.625 

.625 

.886 

.788 

.69 


.772 


.69 

.63 

.565 

.44 

.44 

.44 

.50 


Dates. 


1914. 
Feb.  26... 
Mar.     51.. 

12... 

19... 

26... 

Apr.     2... 

8... 

16... 

23... 

30... 
May     7... 

14... 

21... 

28... 
June    4 — 

11... 

18... 

25... 
July     2..., 
9... 

16... 

23... 

30... 
Aug.    6.... 

13..., 

20... 

27.... 
Sept.   3..., 

10..., 

17..., 

24... 
Oct.     1..., 
8..., 

15.-., 

22..., 

29... 
Nov.    5 — 

12. . . , 

19... 

25.... 
Dec.    3.... 

10.... 

17.... 

23.... 

30.... 


Granu- 
lated. 


Cents. 
3.92 

3.92 
3.822 
3.773 
3.773 
3.773 
3.675 
3.675 
3.735 
3.735 
3.832 
3.92 
4.018 
4.116 
4.116 
4.116 
4.214 
4.214 
4.214 
4.214 
4.214 
4.214 
4.165 
4.90 
6.86 
7.35 
6.86 
.  6.86 
7.105 
7.105 
6.125 
6.37 
6.125 
5.88 
5.782 
5.488 
4.90 
4.90 
4.998 
4.998 
4.90 
4.90 
4.753 
4.753 
4.851 


Cuban 
centrifu- 
gals 96° 
(duty 
paid). 


Cents. 
3.39 
3.01 
2.95 
3.01 
2.95 
2.95 
2.92 
2.98 
3.01 
3.04 
3.14 
3.20 
3.32 
3.39 
3.32 
3.32 
3.39 
3.32 
3.32 
3.26 
3.26 
3.26 
3.29 
4.26 
6.52 
6.00 
6.02 
6.01 
6.27 
5.89 
5.02 
5.01 
5.02 
4.51 
4.26 
3.64 
3.45 
4.07 
4.01 
4.04 
3.95 
3.89 
3.95 
4.01 
4.01 


Margin 
between 
raw  and 
refined. 


Cents. 
0.53 

.91 
.872 
.763 
.823 
.823 
.755 
.695 
.725 
.695 
.692 
.72 
.698 
.726 
.796 
.796 
.824 
.894 
.894 
.954 
.954 
.954 
.875 
.64 
.34 
1.35 
.84 
.85 
.835 
1.215 
1.105 
1.36 
1.105 
1.37 
1.522 
1.848 
1.45 
.83 
.988 
.958 
.95 
1.01 
.803 
.743 
.841 


1  Full  duty  on  Cuban  96**  sugar  from  Mar.  1, 1914,  is  1.0048  cents  per  pound.    Refined  sugars  will  pa7 
duty  according  to  polariscopic  test. 


CHAPTER  V. 

INVESTMENT,  CAPITALIZATION,  AND  EARNINGS  OF  BEET-SUGAE 

COMPANIES. 

Section  1.  Investment  and  capitalization. 

The  books  of  38  beet-sugar  companies  were  examined  in  1914,  and 
y       adequate  financial  statements  were  secured  from  37.    These  37  com- 
panies owned  the  factories  that  produced  98.6  per  cent  of  all  the  sugar 
produced  in  the  United  States. 

In  determining  the  net  investment  no  allowance  has  been  made  for 
good  will.  In  every  case  the  exact  cost  of  building,  machinery,  and 
other  equipment  was  ascertained  as  nearly  as  possible,  and  this 
amount  was  added  to  the  net  current  assets  to  arrive  at  the  total  net 
investment.  The  net  current  assets  consist  of  the  difference  between  . 
the  amount  of  inventories,  bills  and  accounts  receivable,  and  cash  and  . 
-(^  the  amount  of  bills  and  accounts  payable.  The  method  of  ascertaining 
the  cost  of  buildings  and  equipment  has  already  been  described  in  the 
discussion  of  depreciation  (see  p.  67) .  The  value  of  inventories  cov- 
ering granulated  sugar  and  supplies  were  generally  accepted  as  stated 
in  the  books  of  the  companies,  and  the  book  entries  for  cash,  bills,  ac- 
counts, sugar  in  process,  etc.,  were  likewise  accepted. 

Comparison  of  cost  of  investment  with  capital  LiABiLrnES. — 
The  aggregate  outstanding  capital  stock  of  the  37  companies  con- 
sidered in  this  discussion  at  the  close  of  the  fiscal  year  ending  nearest 
March  1, 1914,  was  $114,930,622,  and  these  companies  had  in  addition 
bond  and  mortgage  indebtedness  aggregating  $10,596,258,  or  total 
capital  liabilities  of  $125,526,880.  The  aggregate  net  investment 
shown  by  the  books  of  the  companies  was  $115,947,775.  It  thus  ap-  ) 
pears  that  these  37  companies  taken  collectively  were  overcapitalized  i 
to  the  extent  of  $9,579,105,  or  8.3  per  cent.  ^ 

[•   f  Taken  individually,  however,  some  of  these  companies  were  under- 

capitalized, while  others  were  much  more  heavily  overcapitalized 
than  the  37  companies  taken  as  a  whole.  Table  28  below  shows  the 
relation  between  the  capital  liabilities  and  net  investment  for  the 
individual  companies.  The  amounts  of  investment  and  capital  are 
not  shown  in  this  comparison  because  the  use  of  the  absolute  figures 
might  identify  some  of  the  companies.  Since  such  identification 
would  probably  serve  no  useful  purpose  and  might  possibly  em- 

123 


i' 


\ 


* '  «^ 


124 


THE  BEET  SUGAB  INDUSTEY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


barrass  some  concerns  only  percentages  are  used  to  show  the  extent 
to  which  overcapitalization  or  undercapitalization  exists.  The  re- 
lation of  investment  to  capital  liabilities  for  the  37  companies  is 
shown  as  of  the  close  of  the  fiscal  year  ending  nearest  March  1,  1910, 
and  the  fiscal  year  ending  nearest  the  same  date  in  1914. 

Table  28.— PERCENTAGE  OF  OVERCAPITALIZATION  OR  UNDERCAPITALIZATION  OP 
BEET-SUGAR  COMPANIES  AT  THE  END  OF  THE  YEARS  1909-10  AND  19ia— 14. 


Com- 
pany 
nnmber. 

1909-10 

1913-14 

• 

Com- 
pany 
namoer. 

1909-10 

1913-14 

Over- 
capitali- 
zation. 

Under- 
capitali- 
zation. 

Over- 
capitali- 
zation. 

Under- 
capitali- 
zation. 

Over- 
capitali- 
zation. 

1 
Under- 
capitali- 
zation. 

Over- 
capitali- 
zation. 

Under- 
capitali- 
zation. 

1 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

9.48 

29.04 

Per  cent. 

40.54 

13.95 

178.34 

Per  cent. 

20 

21 

22 

Per  cent. 
85.97 
95.81 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

129.95 

41.65 

Per  cent. 

2 



3 

31.62 

39.79 

(0 

.31 
51.08 
52.41 

15.03 

4 

20.32 

26.74 

23 

24 

0) 

.70 

5 

37.34 

54.50 

66.52 

1,972.51 

16.63 

2.86 

7.70 

9.29 

22.07 

6 

18.60 
35.93 

0) 

11.08 

16.78 

(0 

70.06 
6.07 

25 

43.31 

7 

26 

27 

28 

29 

72.02 

(1) 

60.10 

8 

0) 

71.42 

74.95 

1.94 

9 

0) 
5.54 

10 

11 

0) 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

26.90 

0) 
0) 
0) 

15.53 

12 

78.99 

(») 
0) 

14.30 

147.20 

13 

8.24 

106.84 

94.85 

20.61 

14 

35.07 
0) 

84.37 

15 

0) 
36.48 

43.51 

16 

27.59 

35 

36 

129.82 

145.57 

17 

84.79 

79.85 

26.74 
34.83 

30.88 

18 

17.65 

20.68 

37 

-» 

10.43 

19 

125.47 

60.68 

V 

1  Organized  since  1909. 

The  second  column  in  the  table  shows  the  relation  of  capital  to 
investment  for  each  company  at  the  close  of  the  year  1909-10,  ex- 
cept, of  course,  for  the  eight  companies  that  were  organized  after 
1909.  The  net  assets  of  companies  organized  prior  to  that  year  have 
been  adjusted  from  the  time  of  their  organization,  in  order  to  arrive 
at  a  proper  figure  for  this  year.  The  third  column  of  the  table  shows 
the  corresponding  relation  for  the  year  1913-14.  The  figures  for 
the  three  years  intervening  between  1909-10  and  1913-14  are  noi; 
given,  because  the  important  figure  is  that  relating  to  the  latest 
year,  while  the  data  for  1909-10  are  shown  merely  to  indicate  the 
changes  during  the  five  years. 

From  the  above  table  it  is  seen  that  in  1913-14  14  companies  had 
capital  liabilities  less  than  the  cost  of  their  net  assets.  Some  of  these 
14  companies,  however,  were  overcapitalized  in  the  beginning.  The 
other  23  companies  had  capital  liabilities  greater  than  the  cost  of 


INVESTMENT,  CAPITALIZATION,  AND  EARNINGS  OF  COMPANIES.       125 

!  their  net  assets,  and  the  excess  measures  their  overcapitalization.  In 
the  present  discussion  the  cost  of  investment,  as  distinguished  from 
its  present  value,  is  considered. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  period  covered  by  the  table  some  of  the 
companies  were  overcapitalized,  but  during  the  intervening  years 
they  increased  their  assets  or  diminished  their  capital  liabilities,  or 

f  both,  until  in  1913-14  they  were  undercapitalized.  On  the  other 
hand,  some  of  the  companies  shown  in  the  table  were  not  overcapi- 
talized at  the  beginning  of  this  period,  but  subsequently  they  either 
dissipated  their  assets  or  increased  their  capital  stock  and  bonds 
without  adding  anything  to  their  assets,  so  that  they  were  overcapi- 
talized in  1913-14. 

/  The  above  points  may  be  ma'de  clearer  by  citing  two  examples. 

Thus,  when  company  No.  24  began  business  it  was  overcapitalized 
more  than  65  per  cent,  but  since  then  it  has  earned  enough  to  pay 
dividends  on  its  outstanding  stock  and  to  add  to  its  assets,  so  that  if 
its  property  had  been  sold  at  the  end  of  1913-14  for  what  it  cost,  the 
proceeds  would  have  redeemed  all  its  stock  at  par  and  left  $22  for 
each  $100  share.  In  the  case  of  company  No.  10,  the  net  assets 
exceeded  the  capital  liabilities  by  nearly  $17  per  share  at  the  close 
of  the  year  1909-10.    During  the  four  years,  however,  its  net  assets 

^.  diminished  until  its  capital  stock  exceeded  its  net  property  by  $7.70 
per  share.  Thus,  if  this  company's  assets  had  been  sold  at  cost  at 
the  end  of  1913-14  it  would  have  lacked,  after  paying  its  debts,  more 
than  $7  per  share  of  having  enough  to  redeem  its  stock  at  par. 

The  most  striking  fact  disclosed  by  the  table  is  the  great  extent  to 
which  some  companies  are  overcapitalized.    Of  the  23  overcapitalized 
companies  in  1914,  6  had  a  capitalization  in  excess  of  the  cost  of  \ 
their  net  assets  of  more  than  100  per  cent,  and  the  capital  liabilities 
of  one  company  was  20  times  the  cost  of  its  nejb  assets.    As  already~^^ 

/        stated,  overcapitalization  in  some  cases  is  due  to  losses  in  the  business  t 
and  not  to  excessive  stock  issues  at  the  time  of  organization.     Only  a  3 
few  years  ago  the  company  just  referred  to  as  being  highly  over- 
capitalized was  undercapitalized  to  the  extent  of  about  35  per  cent, 
but  in  recent  years  it  has  incurred  heavy  losses  and  thereby  almost 

.  entirely  dissipated  its  assets.    In  this  particular  case  the  holders  of 

f  the  stock  have  abundant  means  and  they  have  individually  loaned 
money  to  the  company  to  meet  its  current  obligations.  This  is  also 
true  of  one  or  two  other  companies. 

The  capital  liabilities  of  most  of  the  companies  consist  of  both 
stocks  and  bonds.     In  case  of  liquidation  the  bonds  would  have  to  be 

<[  paid  off  before  the  stockholders  would  be  entitled  to  anything.    As- 

suming that  the  37  companies  in  the  foregoing  table  could  dispose  of 


'•''In 


■*  -«_ 


••m 


126  THE  BEET   SUGAE  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 

their  assets  at  cost,  14  of  them  would  be  able  to  pay  all  their  current 
indebtedness,  retire  their  bonds,  and  have  left  more  than  enough  to  re- 
deem all  of  their  stock  at  par.  Under  these  circumstances  the  other 
23  companies  would  not  be  able  to  return  to  stockholders  the  par 
value  of  their  stock.  A  statement  showing  the  amount  av^ailable  for 
each  $100  of  outstanding  stock  after  paying  current  debts  and  re- 
tiring its  bonds  is  given  below.  The  companies  have  been  arranged 
in  descending  order  according  to  the  book  value  of  net  assets  for  each 
$100  of  capital  stock. 


<r' 


Company 
ISfo. 

Assets 

available 

for  each 

$100  share 

of  stock. 

Company 
No. 

Assets 

available 

for  each 

$100  share 

of  stock. 

Company 
No. 

Assets 
available 

for  each 
$100  share 

of  stock. 

Company 
No. 

Assets 

available 

for  each 

$100  share 

of  stock. 

4  A 

$475.97 
250.64 
183.19 
176.41 
158.09 
146.36 
136.50 
133.14 
128.32 
126.07 

^n 

$118.73 

117.69 

111.65 

101.09 

96.86 

96.07 

92.85 

90.50 

84.14 

79.28 

8 

$79.07 
67.54 
64.73 
62.65 
62.24 
60.05 
56.73 
47.99 
44.91 
40.45 

35 

$36.20 

12. 

99 

21 

3 

35.93 

26. 

^7 

5 

14 

34.57 

34 

2a 

1 

15 

32.68 

25.. 

Oil 

90 

19 

20 

27.95 

36 

0 

6 

27 

27.21 

10 

10 

28 

7 

4.83 

4 

99 

13 

17 

O^. ......... 

11    

33 

* 

^4.......... 

18 

2    

31 

IB.  ......... 

The  above  statement  brings  out  clearly  the  status  of  the  stock 
in  each  of  the  companies,  but  it  takes  no  account  of  possible  de- 
preciation of  the  property  or  increase  in  the  value  of  assets.  Fur- 
thermore, the  lack  of  sufficient  assets  to  cover  stock  at  par  does 
not  necessarily  mean  that  in  case  of  the  liquidation  of  a  company 
the  stockholders  would  lose.  This  might  be  so  if  they  had  paid 
more  for  their  stock  than  the  books  of  the  companies  indicated  it 
to  be  worth.  For  example,  if  all  the  stockholders  of  company  6 
paid  par  for  their  stock,  each  of  them  would  stand  to  lose  $40  on 
each  $100  share  in  case  of  liquidation,  unless  net  assets  were  worth 
more  than  their  book  value.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  stock  of 
this  company  had  been  acquired  by  a  holder  at  a  discount  of  40 
per  cent,  then  in  case  of  liquidation  he  would  lose  practically 
nothing,  since  the  company  presumably  has  at  least  $60  available 
for  the  redemption  of  each  $100  share  of  stock. 

A  number  of  the  overcapitalized  companies  have  been  able  to 
earn  and  pay  dividends  upon  all  their  stock.  Overcapitalization, 
therefore,  does  not  necessarily  imply  unsuccessful  business.  Two 
among  the  largest  beet-sugar  corporations  in  the  country  are  con- 
siderably overcapitalized,  neither  one  of  them  having  a  cost  of  assets 


INVESTMENT,  CAPITALIZATION,  AND  EARNINGS  OF  COMPANIES.       127 

!  equal  to  65  per  cent  of  its  capital  stock.  Some  of  the  more  exten- 
sively  overcapitalized  companies,  however,  have  not  been  successful, 
and  their  present  poor  showing  of  net  assets  as  compared  with  out- 
standing stock  is  largely  due  to  losses  in  business.  ^ 

Section  2.  Relations  of  earnings  to  capital  employed. 

r  In  the  discussion  of  the  relation  of  capital  obligations  to  investment, 

comparisons  were  based  on  net  assets  as  determined  by  their  cost.  In 
order  to  determine  the  rate  of  profit  in  any  busmess  the  usual  method 
which  is  generally  satisfactory  is  to  compare  the  net  earnings  with  the? 
net  assets.  A  comparison  of  the  rate  of  earnings  on  this  basis,  how-J 
ever,  would  not  be  entirely  satisfactory  for  the  companies  here  under 
consideration  because  the  net  assets  of  some  concerns  are  less  than  the 
capital  actually  employed  in  the  business,  while  in  others  it  is  more. 
Certain  companies  have  large  surpluses  which  are  not  used  in  their 
business  at  all.  It  is  evident  that  if  the  rate  of  profit  on  the  sugar 
business  is  the  question  to  be  determined,  such  surpluses,  which  are 
often  invested  in  other  lines  of  business,  should  be  excluded  in  com- 
puting the  capital  employed  in  the  sugar  business.  On  the  other 
hand,  certain  companies  which  have  been  particularly  unfortunate 
have  no  current  assets,  their  current  payables  exceeding  the  sum  of 

X  their  inventories,  receivables,  and  cash.  Consequently,  the  profit  or 
loss  of  their  business  would  be  related  to  a  net  investment  less  than 
the  value  of  their  plants.  In  such  cases  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to 
show  what  was  earned  on  the  capital  actually  employed  in  the  sugar 
business,  to  disregard  the  net  assets  and  to  take  plant  and  plant  site, 
materials  and  supplies,  and  a  reasonable  amount  for  additional 
working  capital.  According  to  this  method  of  treatment,  the  rate 
of  loss  in  companies  which  have  suffered  heavy  reverses  and  have 
borrowed  relatively  large  amounts  on  current  notes  appear  less  ab- 

^  normal  than  they  would  if  the  computations  were  made  on  the  basis 
of  net  assets.  Furthermore,  this  method  gives  a  fairer  view  of  the 
relation  of  profit  and  loss  to  the  capital  actually  employed,  because 
it  is  obvious  that  not  only  plant  and  inventory  but  additional  work- 
ing capital  to  finance  the  purchase  of  material  and  to  pay  for  labor 
^  V  are  necessary. 
f  In  the  following  discussion  of  the  rate  of  profit  in  the  beet  sugar 

industry,  both  methods  are  used,  namely,  net  assets  and  estimated 
capital  actually  employed.  In  the  former  case,  however,  such  part 
of  the  assets  as  are  not  invested  in  the  beet  sugar  business  are 
excluded  as  well  as  any  returns  from  such  outside  investment.    The 

{         results  in  the  aggregate  for  all  the  companies  show,  however,  that  it 
makes  little  difference  which  method  is  used,  the  chief  difference  is 


<m 


128         THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

in  the  results  of  certain  individual  companies  whose  financial  con- 
ditions were  of  an  exceptional  character.    When  the  second  method 
was  used,  it  was  necessary  to  determine  the  amount  of  working 
capital  that  seemed  necessary  to  conduct  the  business.    This  should 
be  sufficient  to  purchase  material  and  supplies  to  meet  pay  roll  and 
.  other  expenses  until  the  sales  of  sugar  will  take  care  of  operating 
^  expenses.    The  relation  of  working  to  total  capital  or  to  total  value 
"  of  product  varies  in  different  industries.    In  some  it  is  comparatively 
.   small  because  the  money  used  in  the  business  is  turned  over  rapidly. 
In  others  it  is  large  because  the  capital  is  turned  over  not  more  than 

once  or  twice  in  a  year. 

On  account  of  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  beet-sugar  industry,  work- 
ing capital  is  not  turned  over  in  a  short  period  and  it  is  therefore 
necessarily  large  in  proportion  to  the  total.  A  beet-sugar  factory 
operates  only  about  three  months  in  a  year.  This  fact  also  raises 
the  ratio  between  the  necessary  working  capital  and  the  total  value 
of  the  products.  Beets  constitute  a  large  item  in  the  total  cost  of 
sugar.  These  must  be  paid  for  practically  within  the  short  operatmg 
period.  This  principle  applies  likewise  to  most  other  operating  ex- 
.C^penses,  particularly  labor  and  supplies.  Returns  from  the  sale  of 
the  product  probably  do  not  amount  to  very  much  within  the  first  20 
or  30  days  of  operation.  Hence,  from  about  a  fourth  to  one-third  of 
the  total  operating  expenses  must  be  borne  before  there  is  any  return. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  considered  that  while  the  fixed  capital 
can  not  be  used  during  a  large  part  of  the  year,  the  amount  required 
for  working  capital  may  be  loaned  out  when  not  needed  for  operating 
the  beet-sugar  business  or  for  carrying  stocks  of  sugar. 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  just  what  should  be  allowed  for  working 

capital  and  consequently  what  should  be  considered  adequate  capital 

employed  as  a  whole.    It  would  seem  that  half  of  the  cost  of  pro- 

•     duction  for  a  season  is  an  ample  allowance  for  this  item,  and  this 

basis  has  been  adopted  in  the  following  computations. 

Earnings  in  the  sugar  business.— A  part  of  the  capital  of  some 
companies  is  employed  in  other  ways  than  in  the  manufacture  of 
sugar,  such  as  farming.  It  thus  became  necessary  to  segregate  the 
capital  employed  in  the  sugar  business-  from  the  total  employed  in 
all  business  for  those  companies  that  had  other  interests.  It  was  not 
necessary  to  make  a  similar  adjustment  for  earnings  because  the  earn- 
ings on  sugar  were  always  separately  shown  in  the  books.  It  was 
necessary,  however,  to  make  some  adjustment  in  both  capital  em- 
ployed and  earnings  when  depreciation  was  taken  into  account.  The 
net  cost  of  depreciable  property  Avas  diminished  by  the  amount  of 
depreciation  computed  according  to  the  method  already  explained 


•  ' 


\\ 


t; 


r 


< 


/ 


'\ 


(^ 


\ 


'(• 


«• 


< 


investment,  capitalization,  and  earnings  of  companies.     129 

and  the  earnings  of  the  companies  were  likewise  diminished. 

The  purpose  here  is  to  show  what  capital  is  employed  in  the  beet- 
sugar  business  and  what  it  has  earned.  The  segregation  of  the  sugar 
manufacturing  business  from  the  total  business  of  some  of  these  com- 
panies discloses  the  fact  that  while  some  have  lost  money  upon  their 
aggregate  business,  upon  their  sugar  business  they  have  had  a  profit. 
Their  farming  operations  have  frequently  shown  losses,  and  where 
profits  have  been  earned  at  all  they  were  usually  small.  It  would  be 
misleading  to  judge  the  results  from  manufacturing  beet  sugar  if 
those  results  were  in  any  way  modified  by  profits  or  losses  in  farming 
or  in  any  other  business. 
Section  3.  Rates  of  earnings  on  capital  employed. 

The  amount  of  capital  employed  by  each  of  the  37  companies  for 
which  data  were  secured  has  been  determined  according  to  the 
method  described.  Of  these  37  companies,  2  operated  only  3  years 
during  the  period  covered,  4  operated  only  2  years,  and  2  operated 
only  1  year.  These  8  companies  have  not  been  included  in  the  main 
table  of  earnings  because  to  do  so  might  disclose  their  identity. 
Separate  lines  at  the  bottom  of  the  table  show  the  earnings  of  the 
8  companies  that  operated  less  than  5  years  and  the  earnings  of  all 
the  37  companies. 

The  actual  amount  of  capital  employed  and  the  actual  amount  of 
earnings  are  not  shown  for  any  company.  To  disclose  these  amounts 
might  possibly  identify  some  concern,  and  for  this  reason  only  the 
rate  of  earnings  is  shown.  These  earnings  represent  the  difference 
between  what  it  cost  to  produce  and  to  market  the  sugar  and  what  it 
sold  for  net.  The  period  covered  is  the  5  years  from  1909-10  to 
1913-14.  For  convenience  in  showing  readily  the  effect  of  depreci- 
ation upon  earnings,  two  computations  have  been  made,  one  exclud- 
ing depreciation,  and  the  other  including  it.  The  results  of  both 
computations  are  shown  in  parallel  columns  in  Table  29  following. 


.11 


■■■:    , 
■■«• 

I 


( 

I 

1 


130  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Table  29.— RATES  OF  EARNINGS  ON  CAPITAL  EMPLOYED,  TAKING  ACCOUNT  OF 
DEPRECIATION,  IN  THE  MANUFACTURE  OF  BEET  SUGAR,  ALLOWING  ONE-HALF 
OF  THE  TOTAL  COST  OF  PRODUCTION  FOR  WORKING  CAPITAL,  BY  YEARS,  AND 
AVERAGES  FOR  5  YEARS,  1909-10  TO  1913-14,  INCLUSIVE. 


Not  including  depreciation. 

Including  depreciation 

• 

Company  No. 

1900- 
10 

1910- 
11 

P.ct. 
12.5 

3.8 
13.6 

L3 
15.0 

5.5 
7.6 
6.5 
2.5 
18.7 

7.4 
1.0 

n.o 

2.4 
25.0 

22.1 
11.5 
5.4 
18.5 
13.4 

19.2 
47.7 
2.3 
16.4 
12.2 

19.1 

4.2 

25.3 

29.5 

1911- 
12 

191^ 
13 

1913- 
14 

Aver- 
age for 
5  years. 

1909- 
10 

1910- 
11 

1911- 
12 

1912- 
13 

1913- 
14 

Aver- 
age for 
5  years. 

1 .• 

P.ct. 
17.2 
14.3 
19.1 
9.2 
23.8 

6.8 
15.0 
10.0 

4.1 
30.7 

14.1 
5.7 

21.3 
2.7 

23.2 

16.3 
8.6 

7.8 

8.7 

22.6 

24.1 

50.2 

3.9 

6.6 

14.1 

19.2 
5.5 
7.5 

26.9 

P.ct. 
2.1 

17.4 

16.1 

10.7 

8.6 

11.0 
136.6 

11.3 

122.8 

6.4 

13.5 

110.0 

10.2 

4.3 

25.4 

23.2 
3.0 
11.5 
24.4 
26.2 

30.4 
50.2 
12.9 
16.1 
18.9 

19.9 

5.3 

20.4 

32.2 

P.ct. 
3.0 

2.0 
6.0 
7.1 
2.1 

4.5 

123.3 

14.1 

6.3 

4.0 

3.1 

15.6 

3.6 

3.4 

26.5 

9.3 
4.0 
8.3 
8.8 
15.3 

26.1 
25.1 
13.4 
17.9 
12.0 

5.6 

111.3 

18.9 

32.1 

P.ct. 
4.7 
2.1 

19.0 

4.8 
10.9 

16.5 

18.6 

2.0 

1.3 

9.4 

11.3 
13.6 

4.7 
17.2 

4.3 

7.6 
18.0 

6.2 
17.2 

6.5 

9.0 
5.8 
6.0 
8.8 
7.2 

2.5 
15.4 
18.9 
16.7 

P.  ct. 

6.6 

1.5 

14.0 

6.7 

11.6 

3.7 

110.9 

2.3 

12.6 

13.5 

3.5 

13.1 

8.4 

L2 

20.4 

15.4 

3.8 

7.9 

10.2 

16.2 

21.5 
35.2 
7.7 
13.4 
12.7 

12.0 

1.8 

18.3 

27.3 

P.ct. 
18.7 
20.7 
114.9 
7.2 
23.4 

3.4 

14.1 

8.5 

0.0 

31.5 

14.3 
2.2 
20.5 
1L3 
26.7 

18.5 
5.6 
4.8 
7.5 

22.6 

24.5 

63.4 

.1 

3.3 

14.2 

16.2 
1.3 
4.6 

30.0 

P.ct. 
12.8 
8.9 
17.9 
13.8 
14.0 

1.9 

5.4 

4.4 

11.9 

18.1 

5.7 
13.0 

8.6 
1L8 
30.9 

27.8 

9.4 

2.2 

22.1 

11.9 

19.5 
60.2 
12.3 
14.8 
12.1 

16.7 

0.0 

23.8 

34.1 

P.ct. 

11.1 

119.7 

110.8 

10.4 

6.7 

9.4 

147.8 

15.6 

135.5 

3.9 

18.3 

115.1 

8.0 

L6 

32.5 

30.2 
1L5 
9.3 
3L1 
28.6 

34.4 
64.2 
12.7 
15.2 
22.2 

17.9 

1.2 

19.1 

38.7 

P.ct. 

11.0 

12.3 
3.5 
5.2 

11.7 

L7 
135.5 
110.5 

3.7 
.3 

1.2 

111.2 

0.0 

0.0 

33.2 

9.2 

.3 

5.9 

8.2 

15.4 

30.0 
31.6 
14.1 
18.0 
12.6 

2.4 

119.4 

18.0 

40.1 

P.ct. 

1.3 

12.2 

116.3 

1.6 

9.7 

113.2 

116.9 

12.2 

17.6 

7.8 

17.5 
110.3 

1.2 
117.2 

L6 

6.7 
117.3 

3.5 
117.0 

4.6 

7.8 
4.0 
3.2 
6.8 
5.4 

iLl 

112.7 

18.7 

19.2 

P.ct. 
4.2 

2 

13.3 

3 

18.8 

4 

4.4 

6 

10.1 

6 

.2 

7 

117.8 

9 

1L3 

10 

19.2 

12 

12.4 

13 

.4 

14 

18.0 

16 

5.7 

17 

13.2 

18 

24.4 

19 

18.3 

20 

1.2 

21 

5.3 

22 

10.2 

24 

16.0 

25 

23.2 

26 

44.8 

27 

5.4 

29 

11.8 

30 

13.3 

34 

9.3 

35 

16.1 

36 

16.7 

37 

32.4 

29  companies  operating 
5  years 

16.6 

14.7 

15.3 
n5.9 

10.1 
•6.3 

6.1 
«1.2 

12.2 
<4.7 

16.3 

14.4 

15.6 
«12.8 

9.0 
•2.8 

3.7 
1*2.6 

11.6 

8  companies  operating 
lejw  than  5  vears 

U.3 

Total,  all  companies 

16.6 

14.7 

15.3 

9.8 

5.7 

12.0 

16.3 

14.4 

15.5 

8.6 

3.1 

n.2 

iLoss. 


1  Two  companies. 


8  Six  companies. 


'  Eight  companies. 


The  29  companies  included  in  the  body  of  the  foregoing  table 
produced  5,753,021,000  pounds  of  sugar  in  the  5  years  covered  by 
this  report,  which  was  95  per  cent  of  all  the  beet  sugar  manufactured 
in  the  United  States  during  that  period.  The  average  annual  rate  of 
earnings  for  these  29  companies  during  the  period  covered,  after 


f 


/ 


\ 


r' 


'    s 


) 


V 


INVESTMENT,  CAPITALIZATION,  AND  EARNINGS  OF  COMPANIES.       131 

taking  account  of  depreciation,  was  11.6  per  cent.  This  was  only 
six-tenths  of  1  per  cent  less  than  the  average  earnings  when  deprecia- 
tion was  not  taken  into  account.  It  should  be  noted  that  in  the  year 
1909-10  only  one  company  showed  a  loss,  while  in  1913-14  10  com- 
panies showed  a  loss  without  taking  depreciation  into  account,  and 
13  showed  losses  when  depreciation  is  considered.  The  highest  aver- 
age rate  of  earnings  in  any  year,  after  deducting  depreciation,  was 
16.3  per  cent  in  1909-10,  and  the  lowest  was  3.7  per  cent  in  1913-14.  ^ 
In  no  other  year  did  the  earnings  fall  below  9  per  cent.  Even 
in  the  poorest  year  of  the  period  (1913-14)  each  of  the  7  companies 
producing  29  per  cent  of  the  total  product  for  that  year,  earned 
over  6  per  cent,  and  each  of  the  9  companies  producing  69  per  cent  . 
of  the  total  product  earned  over  4J  per  cent  of  its  capital.  -^ 

The  heavy  losses  of  the  few  companies  in  1911-12  were  due  to  their 
inability  to  work  up  all  the  beets  they  purchased  before  they  spoiled, 
and  their  losses  on  this  account  were  very  heavy.  These  companies 
all  operated  in  the  Lake  States.  Company  No.  7,  after  allowing  for 
depreciation,'lost  nearly  48  per  cent  of  the  capital  it  had  employed  in 
its  business  in  that  year.  This  company  borrowed  money  to  con- 
tinue its  business,  and  again  in  the  next  year  lost  more  than  one-third 
of  the  capital  it  had  employed,  and  in  the  next  year  again  it  resorted 
to  borrowing  and  lost  nearly  17  per  cent. 

Company  No.  26  showed  the  best  results,  it  having  earned  an  aver- 
age of  nearly  45  per  cent  on  its  capital  employed  during  the  5-year 
period.  Twelve  companies  had  average  earnings  of  more  than  10 
per  cent  during  the  period.  The  poorest  results  are  shown  for  fac- 
tory No.  7,  which  showed  an  average  loss  of  nearly  18  per  cent  for 
the  period.  At  the  beginning  of  the  period  this  company  earned  14 
per  cent,  but  it  had  very  heavy  losses  in  1911  and  in  1912. 

The  low  average  earnings  in  1913-14  were  due  mainly  to  a  slump  iu 
the  price  of  granulated  sugar.  The  average  net  price  in  1913-14  was 
about  96  cents  per  100  pounds  less  than  was  realized  the  year  before 
and  more  than  $1  per  100  pounds  less  than  for  any  other  year  in  the 
5-year  period  under  consideration. 

It  will  be  noted  that  some  companies  show  a  higher  rate  of  earn- 
ings after  deducting  depreciation  than  they  do  when  depreciation 
is  not  taken  into  account.  This  is  true  of  companies  25  and  26 
throughout  the  entire  period  except  in  1913-14.  This  apparent  in- 
consistency is  due  to  the  fact  that  accumulated  depreciations  prior 
to  1909  had  greatly  reduced  net  investment  in  depreciable  property. 
For  example,  the  depreciable  property  of  company  No.  26  cost  ap- 
proximately $433,000  when  it  began  business  in  1899.  By  1909  addi- 
tions to  the  plant  had  been  made  until  the  cost  was  $501,000.  In 
the  meantime,  however,  depreciation  had  accrued  until  at  the  be- 


V 


I 


'■a  ifc 


"•y  •■» 


-—.  *.^, 


(| 


i  I 


132 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


ginning  of  1909  this  amounted  to  $229,000,  and  the  actual  net  cost 
of  depreciable  property  was,  therefore,  reduced  to  $272,000.  Only 
those  companies  that  have  been  in  operation  a  comparatively  long 
period  of  years  and  which  had  made  comparatively  small  additions 
to  their  investment  would  show  any  such  results.  The  earnings  of 
companies  that  began  business  only  a  few  years  prior  to  1909,  and 
which  have  since  then  made  considerable  additions  to  their  depreci- 
able property  are  of  course  not  similarly  affected  by  making  deduc- 
tions for  depreciation.  Generally  the  effect  of  the  depreciation 
charge  is  to  reduce  the  average  rate  of  earnings  during  the  5-year 
period. 

Rates  of  earnings  by  groups  of  companies. — ^A  fuller  signifi- 
cance of  the  rates  of  earnings  in  the  industry  as  a  whole  will  be 
seen  from  a  grouping  of  the  companies  according  to  their  earnings 
and  according  to  the  percentage  of  the  total  sugar  they  produced. 
Ap  already  stated,  29  companies  included  in  the  body  of  Table  20 
produced  95  per  cent  of  all  the  beet  sugar  made  in  the  United  States 
during  the  5  years  ending  with  the  campaign  1913-14.  •  In  the  state- 
ment below  the  29  companies  have  been  grouped  according  to  their 
rates  of  earnings,  after  deducting  depreciation,  and  it  shows  what 
percentage  of  all  the  sugar  produced  by  these  29  companies  and  of 
all  the  sugar  produced  in  the  United  States  was  produced  by  each 
group : 


Group. 


Group  I.., 
Group  II. 
Group  III 
Group  IV. 
Group  V. . 


Number  ! 
of  com- 
panies. 


Rate  of  earnings. 


16 
13 

7 
13 

9 


Over  5  per  cent 

0ver9per  cent 

Over  16  per  cent 

Less  than  5  per  cent.. 
Loss 


Per  cent  of 
production 
of  29  com- 
panies. 


86 
78 
56 
14 
10 


Per  cent  of 
total  pro- 
duction in 
United 
States. 


8> 
75 
58 

131 

9i 


The  earnings  shown  in  the  above  groups  are  net  after  making 
deductions  for  depreciation.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  13  com- 
panies earning  less  than  5  per  cent  during  the  period  produced  only 
13J  per  cent  of  the  total  production  of  the  country.  None  of  the 
companies  in  this  group  earned  as  much  as  4J  per  cent,  and  9  of 
them  operated  at  an  absolute  loss.  It  should  also  be  particularly 
noted  that  the  companies  producing  78  per  cent  of  the  production  of 
the  29  companies  and  75  per  cent  of  the  total  production  of  the 
United  States  earned  an  average  of  more  than  9  per  cent  on  the 
capital  employed  during  the  five-year  period. 


k 


) 


INVESTMENT,  CAPITALIZATION,  AND  EARNINGS  OF  COMPANIES.       133 

Section  4.  Bates  of  earningfs  on  net  investment. 

The  earnings  shown  and  discussed  in  the  preceding  section  are  net 
on  the  capital  actually  employed  in  the  business  regardless  of  whether 
it  was  owned  or  borrowed  and  after  depreciation  has  been  deducted. 
The  annual  rates  of  earnings  on  net  investment,  computed  in  the 
usual  way,  diflPer  slightly  from  those  in  Table  29.  Such  a  statement 
of  earnings  is  shown  in  Table  30  below. 

Tablb  30— annual  RATES  OF  EARNINGS  FROM  SUGAR  ON  NET  INVESTMENT  IN  THE 
SUGAR  BUSINESS,  BY  COMPANIES,  1909-10  TO  1913-14,  AND  THE  AVERAGE  ANNUAL 
RATE  OF  EARNINGS  FOR  THE  5  YEARS. 

[Note.— No  company  operating  less  than  5  years  is  included  in  this  table.] 


Company  No. 


1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

5. 


6.. 
7.- 
9.. 
10. 
12. 

13. 
14. 
16. 
17. 

18. 

19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 
24. 

25. 
26. 
27. 
29. 
30. 


04. 
35. 
36. 
37. 


Avera  g  e 
for  29 
compa- 
nies  


P.ct. 
18.2 
15.0 

110.8 

9.0 

23.0 

7.1 
16.1 
13.2 

4.5 
36.0 

15.3 
6.1 

21.6 
3.1 

14.8 

21.8 
9.0 
7.9 
8.8 

17.9 

18.9 

46.4 

4.2 

6.2 

14.7 

20.1 
5.1 
6.5 

27.0 


16.0 


Not  including  depreciation. 


P.ct. 
14.7 

4.7 
14.8 

1.5 
15.8 

5.4 

8.2 

9.2 

2.8 

23.9 

9.2 
1.2 

14.0 
2.9 

13.8 

25.1 
11.5 
5.7 
19.3 
10.2 

12.8 
39.7 
2.3 
20.9 
12.2 

21.8 

3.8 

23.6 

28.6 


I 


14.2 


P.ct. 
2.2 

19.8 

18.4 

11.9 

10.5 

11.0 

148.7 

11.8 

124.3 

7.9 

15.6 

114.3 

13.8 

6.2 

17.3 

25.0 
2.8 
12.3 
24.0 
19.0 

19.5 
41.0 
11.8 
14.7 
19.3 

24.0 

5.3 

17.9 

32.9 


14.9 


87731—17 10 


CO 

e!, 

1-1 
at 


P.  Ct. 

3.6 
2.6 
8.1 
7.2 
2.5 

5.6 

133.4 

15.5 

7.9 

3.5 

3.2 

17.1 

4.7 

4.8 
18.7 

10.2 
4.1 

10.0 
8.5 

12.4 

15.0 
20.1 
11.8 
20.6 
11.1 

5.9 

1  11.4 

14.8 

34.0 


a> 


9.9 


P.  a. 

5.7 

2.9 

1  11.3 

5.0 

12.0 

19.4 

110.3 

2.5 

1.3 

8.3 

11.6 
14.1 

5.3 
19.4 

3.2 

8.8 
17.8 

7.2 
18.6 

5.5 

5.4 
5.4 
5.4 
9.2 
7.1 

2.8 
16.0 
14.9 
16.4 


o 


6.0 


P.ct. 
7.7 
1.9 

15.2 

7.0 

12.8 

4.2 

1  13.2 

3.1 

12.9 

14.4 

4.3 
13.8 
10.3 

1.6 
13.5 

17.7 

3.7 

8.8 

10.6 

12.8 

13.9 
30.1 
7.4 
14,0 
12.6 

13.3 

1.8 
15.5 
27.5 


Including  depreciation. 


11.9 


P.ct. 
20.3 
22.5 

118.3 

7.1 

22.6 

3.6 

15.4 

12.4 

.0 

37.9 

16.0 
2.3 
20.8 
1  1.6 
15.'3 

27.2 
5.9 
4.9 
7.6 

17.2 

18.6 

57.1 

.1 

3.0 

15.1 

17.1 
1.2 
3.9 

30.1 


15.5 


P.ct. 

16.2 

1.3 

1  11.1 

4.3 

14.9 

1.9 

5.9 

7.1 

12.2 

24.2 

7.8 
13.8 
11.3 
12.3 
14.3 

32.3 
9.4 
2.4 

23.5 

8.7 

12.0 
47.4 
12.4 
19.6 
12.2 

19.2 

.0 

22.0 

32.7 


I 


CO 


P.ct. 

11.3 
137.1 
116.1 

12.1 
8.4 

9.4 

168.7 

18.3 

38.8 

5.1 

116.6 
123.0 

11.5 
2.6 

19.3 

32.5 
1  1.4 
10.1 
30.4 
19.4 

2.0  i 

4.9 

11.2 

13.5 

22.9 

22.1 

1.3 

16.6 

39.9 


P.ct. 

11.3 

14.3 
5.2 
5.2 

12.1 

2.2 
159.6 
1  16.3 


I 


P.et. 
.  1.7 

14.1 

122.3 

1.7 

11.1 

121.9 
121.9 


13.2 
5.2  i    19.2 

.2!      6.6 


13.6 


15.0 


1.2 

1  15.1 

1.1 

.1 

20.8 

10.3 

.3 

7.5 

7.8 

11.9 

15.2 
23.3 
11.8 
21.4 
11.3 

2.5 

119.6 

13.7 

43.4 


110.5 
112.4 

1.4 
127.1 

1.0 

8.1 
116.6 


4.3 

122.9 

3.7 

4.1 

3.6 

2.8 

7.2 

5.3 

11.3 

114.7 

14.2 

18.7 

8.7        3.6 


1  Loss. 


W  Mi 


p.ct. 

5.1 

15.5 

112.2 

4.7 

11.4 

.2 
123.0 

11.9 
1  10.9 

13.5 

.5 

110.2 

7.2 

14.6 

14.2 

21.8 

.3 

6.1 

10.8 

12.1 

13.6 
36.3 
5.0 
12.5 
13.1 

10.5 
16.0 
14.0 
32.7 


11.2 


I 


A  ■  A?!^*' J-  ■ 


*«■ 


134         THE  BEET  SUGAB  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

The  average  rate  of  earnings  from  sugar  on  the  net  investment 
for  the  29  companies  for  the  five  years,  after  deducting  deprecia- 
tion, is  only  four-tenths  of  1  per  cent  less  than  the  average  rate  on 
the  capital  employed.  The  difference  in  the  earnings  computed  on 
this  basis  and  on  the  basis  used  in  Table  29,  after  taking  deprecia- 
tion into  account,  is  less  than  1  per  cent  in  each  year  during  the 
period. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
EFFICIENCY  IN  THE  BEET-SUGAR  INDUSTRY. 


\ 


/., 


\  ■! 


I 


Section  1.  Principal  elements  to  consider  in  studying  efficiency. 

Speaking  broadly,  efficiency  in  production  means  the  degree  of  I 
cheapness  with  which  an  article  can  be  produced  and  sold.    In  this  J 
broad  sense  every  element  of  cost  must  be  included.    In  a  narrower 
I         sense  productive  efficiency  refers  to  the  cheapness  with  which  me- 
chanical processes  can  be  performed.    In  a  practical  sense  efficiency^ 
is  only  relative ;  that  is  to  say,  a  factory  in  any  industry  is  efficient 
or  inefficient  only  as  compared  with  some  other  factory  or  with  some 
recognized  standard.     A  fair  basis  of  comparison  is  the  average 
results  of  several   well-equipped,   well-located,   and  well-managed 
plants  with  the  results  of  plants  not  so  well  located  or  so  well 
equipped  and  managed.     This  would  seem  to  be  more  reasonable 

i  than  to  adopt  as  a  standard  the  results  of  the  best  factory  in  an 
industry.  Such  a  factory  would  indicate  the  possibilities  under  the 
most  favorable  conditions,  but  it  would  not  indicate  probabilities 
under  ordinarily  favorable  conditions. 

The  elements  of  efficiency  may  be  grouped  into  two  classes, 
namely,  mechanical  and  economic.  Or,  to  put  it  another  waj^,  it 
may  be  said  that  there  are  two  phases  of  efficienc}^,  namely,  factory 
efficiency  and  business  efficiency.  A  factory  may  be  mechanically 
efficient  and  yet  utterly  fail.  Its  conversion  of  raw  materials  int^ 
the  finished  product  may  be  at  the  lowest  possible  cost,  but  if  on 
account  of  location  or  for  other  reasons  its  raw  material  has  cost 
too  much  or  if  the  expense  of  distributing  its  product  is  excessive, 
it  can  not  succeed.  On  the  other  hand,  a  manufacturing  plant  may 
be  situated  to  the  best  possible  advantage,  but  if  it  is  equipped 
with  poor  machinery,  or  even  with  good  machinery  badly  arranged, 
it  is  apt  to  fail. 
Mechanical  elements. — The  principal  mechanical  elements  in- 

I  volved  in  a  study  of  efficiency  are  equipment  and  organization.    By    ^ 

equipment  is  meant  the  kind  of  appliances,  machinery,  and  processes 
used;  by  organization  is  meant  the  adaptation  of  buildings  to  the 

^         purposes  for  which  they  are  used  and  the  arrangement  and  coordi- 

V        nation  of  appliances  and  machinery.    In  respect  to  mechanical  equip- 
ment and  organization,  three  comparisons  are  important.    The  first 

135 


%/ 


•■)- 


1/ 


vA 


1 

1 

•11 


I 


I 


I      « 


136 


THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES. 


/ 


is  a  comparison  of  factories  of  substantially  like  equipment  and 
eqtial  capacity;  the  second  is  a  comparison  of  factories  with  like 
equipment  and  organization,  but  of  unequal  capacity;  the  third  is 
a  comparison  of  factories  of  equal  capacity  and  similar  organiza- 
tion, but  with  unlike  equipments.  The  first  is  practically  a  com- 
parison of  organization  and  arrangement  of  machinery.  The  second 
resolves  itself  into  a  comparison  of  large  and  small  scale  operations. 

It  is  this  second  comparison  that  is  now  receiving  attention  from 
business  men  and  economists.  The  third  comparison  is  a  test  of  the 
merits  of  different  appliances,  machines,  t)r  processes. 

Exact  comparisons  under  all  of  these  different  circumstances  re- 
quire that  the  raw  material  used  and  the  manufactured  product 
turned  out  shall  be  substantially  identical  in  character,  condition,  and 
quality.  Identical  raw  material  becomes  especially  important  where, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  beet-sugar  industry,  it  constitutes  a  very  large 
percentage  of  the  total  cost.  It  is  obvious  therefore  that  a  wide 
variation  in  the  quality  of  beets  makes  impossible  any  exact  compari- 
son of  the  general  efficiency  of  beet-sugar  factories  even  though  all 
the  other  elements  are  favorable.  Strictly  speaking,  factory  efficiency 
need  not  take  account  of  anything  except  equipment  and  organiza- 
tion. Therefore,  if  the  same  quality  of  beets  were  used  in  the  fac- 
tories compared,  the  element  of  raw  material  could  be  entirely  elimi- 
nated in  arriving  at  relative  factory  efficiency.  This,  however,  is  not 
the  case,  and  here  lies  difficulty  in  a  study  of  efficiency  in  this 
industry. 

Economic  elements  to  be  considered. — The  most  important  eco- 
nomic elements  are  location  of  plant,  distribution  of  product,  and 
business  management.  From  the  standpoint  of  business  success, 
which  is  the  final  test,  the  economic  elements  in  the  beet-sugar  in- 
dustry are  perhaps  of  greatest  importance.  Some  of  the  best- 
equipped  sugar  factories  in  the  country  have  been  unsuccessful  be- 
cause of  bad  location  in  respect  to  raw  materials.  Others  have  faileu 
because  of  bad  business  judgment  in  the  construction  of  plants,  or 
other  matters. 

DirncuLTiEs  in  a  comparative  study  of  efficiency  in  beet- 
suGAR  FACTORIES. — Similarity  in  the  fundamental  elements  necessary 
to  exact  comparisons  of  efficiency  in  the  beet-sugar  industry  are  sel- 
dom if  ever  found.  In  fact,  there  is  such  a  lack  of  harmony  among 
these  elements,  as  found  in  various  factories,  as  to  compel  all' com- 
parisons to  be  more  or  less  general.  In  the  first  place,  as  already 
pointed  out,  there  is  a  wide  variation  in  the  quality  of  beets  used 
in  different  factories  and  sometimes  a  wide  variation  of  the  quality 
used  in  the  same  factory  in  different  years.  The  value  of  beets 
depends  upon  the  quantity  of  sugar  they  contain  and  the  purity  of 
the  sugar  content.    These  elements  vary  widely.     Some  beets  test 


i 


EFFICIENCY  IN   THE  BEET-SUGAR  INDUSTRY. 


137 


!  18or20percent  sugar,  .while  others  test  not  over  half  as  much.  The 
purity  of  the  beets  as  worked  in  factories  ranges  from  as  low  as  7T 
to  above  88  per  cent.  Upon  these  elements  depends  the  possible 
quantity  of  sugar  that  can  be  extracted.  On  account  of  variation 
in  the  quality  of  beets,  sugar  extraction  varies  from  only  about  200 
pounds  of  sugar  per  ton  of  beets  in  some  factories  for  some  years  to 

V  over  300  pounds  in  others.  While  this  variation  in  the  principal 
raw.  material  does  not  preclude  a  comparison  of  factory  efficiency,  it 
does  affect  its  exactness.  This  is  so  because  the  cost  of  working 
beets  of  high  quality  differs  from  the  cost  of  working  low-quality 

beets. 

A  peculiar  feature  of  the  beet-sugar  industry  is  the  fact  that  nd 
factory  can  operate  more  than  a  few  months  in  each  year.    The  rea-\ 
son  for  this  has  been  explained  (see  p.  2).    The  length  of  time  that) 
a  factory  can  be  operated  depends  upon  the  quantity  of  available! 
fresh  beets  and  varies  from  less  than  two  months  to  sometimes  as 
much  as  four  months.     The  average  is  less  than  three  months.     This 
variation  in  periods  of  operation  disturbs  fair  comparisons  of  me- 
chanical efficiency.     This  is  so  because  certain  fixed  charges  and  some  ) 
charges  for  labor  do  not  stop  when  the  factory  closes,  and  all  must  be/ 
p ,,  charged  to  the  sugar  produced.     Of  course  the  shorter  the  time  of' 

[  X  operation  the  less  the  quantity  of  sugar  produced  and  the  greater 
are  the  fixed  charges  per  100  pounds.  Furthermore,  certain  factory 
employees  are  retained  the  entire  year  and  a  part  of  the  time  they 
are  not  profitably  engaged.  Thus  the  element  of  labor  cost  is  pro- 
portionately increased  by  a  short  period  of  operation.  \ 
In  spite  of  these  difficulties,  however,  some  valuable  comparison^ 
can  be  made.  From  the  mass  of  data  ^cured  it  is  possible  to  com- 
pare groups  of  factories  having  low  manufacturing  costs  witli  other 
groups  having  high  costs.  It  is  also  possible  to  compare  the  results 
of  large  plants  with  those  of  small  ones. 

Probably  the  surest  test  of  an  efficient  factory  is  the  percentage  of 
sugar  lost  in  the  course  of  manufacture,  or  to  put  it  another  way,  the 
percentage  of  available  sugar  that  is  saved.  Comparisons  of  economic 
efficiency  are  more  easily  made.    It  is  easy  to  demonstrate  that  some 

V  factories  are  badly  located  and  that  no  matter  how  efficient  they  may 
f)        be  mechanically  they  can  not  be  profitably  operated.     This  sort  of 

comparison  clearly  indicates  some  mistakes  that  have  been  made  in 
selecting  locations  for  beet-sugar  manufacture. 

Section  2.  Comparisons  based  on  scale  of  operations. 
i  :  The  capacity  of  a  beet-sugar  factory  is  measured  by  the  numoer 
of  tons  of  beets  which  can  be  sliced  in  a  dav  of  24  hours.  The  sizQ 
of  a  factory  should  depend  upon  the  field  from  which  the  beets  arej 
to  be  drawn  and  its  possibilities.    It  is  the  usual  plan  in  erecting 


> 


t'L'miii 


t! 


138         THE  BEET  SUGAE  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

factories  to  build  them  so  that  their  capacity,  may  be  later  increased. 
How  large  to  build  a  factory  is  no  more  than  a  guess,  especially  in 
communities  where  beet  growing  is  not  established.  There  is  no' 
doubt  that  districts  that  gave  little  promise  have  afterwards  became 
remarkable  beet  districts,  while  others  which  were  thought  to  be 
promising  have  resulted  in  failures. 

iJ/!!!™"^  ^^^  ''''^''"'^  ***  *^^  ^'•^^  factories  built  was  small.  In 
1896  there  were  seven  factories  reported  to  be  in  operation,  none  of 
which  had  a  rated  capacity  of  more  than  1,000  tons.  Four  were 
rated  at  only  350  tons.  In  later  years,  as  the  industry  became  more 
fimly  established,  larger  factories  were  built  or  the  capacity  of  the 
o  der  ones  increased.  During  the  campaign  year  1913-14  there  were 
71  factories  in  open^tion.  From  the  best  information  available  26 
of  these  were  rated  as  having  a  daily  slicing  capacity  of  1,000  tons 
or  more.  In  addition  to  this  number  22  were  capable  of  slicing  700 
tons  or  more  per  day,  23  were  rated  as  less  than  700-ton  plants,  only 
4  of  which  were  less  than  500-ton  plants. 

Due  to  local  conditions  it  is  rather  difficult  to  compare  the  efficiency 
of  large  and  small  plants.  It  can  be  seen  that  the  increase  in  th. 
.reight  on  beets  might  easily  overcome  any  advantage  obtained  by 
large-scale  operation.  The  importance  of  being  favorably  located 
IS  discussed  elsewhere  (see  p.  141).  Although  the  extraction  is 
not  increased  m  the  larger  factory  it  is  the  opinion  of  men  well 
informed  regarding  the  industry  that  the  operating  costs,  especially 
the  cost  of  labor  and  overhead  charges,  are  less  per  bag  of  sugar 
produced.  The  views  of  certain  managers  on  this  point  are  of  in- 
terest. The  general  manager  of  one  of  the  largest  beet-sugar  con- 
cerns in  the  United  States,  in  a  statement  to  the  commission  regard- 
ing the.  efficiency  of  large  and  small  plants,  said : 

Assuming  that  size  is  the  only  essential  point  of  difference 

vfr^'j^-fJ^'^lT'  ^""^  'T^'l''^'^  ''"'•  «^P«rience  t^re  would  he 
very  little  difference  in  the  efficiency  of  a  large  and  a  small  fac- 
tory, with  the  slight  difference  in  favor  of  the  large  factZ  & 
mam  reason  for  this  is  that  a  large  factory's  overhead  Yipens^ 
per  bag  of  sugar  would  not  be  quite  so  largYas  that  of  a  smaHel 
lactory;  but  this  overhead  expense  is  such  a  small  part  of  the 
total  cost  of  producing  a  bag  of  sugar  that  the  saving  would  be 
nominal.  A  large  house  might  also  make  a  slight  saving  in 
"Operating  Labor"  per  bag  of  sugar.  The  saviSg  mentioned^ 
however,  might  easily  be  offset  by  a  heavier  average  freight  rate 
per  ton  of  beets  m  case  of  the  larger  factory,  as  it  would  un- 

ioSdlE  smluer.     '"  '*'  '"^^^^  ^^'^  "  ^^**^^  '^^^^^'^'^^  ^^^"^ 
The  manager  of  another  important  company  was  even  more  em- 
phatic m  his  statement,  which  was  as  follows: 

Concerning  the  efficiency  of  large  and  small  plants  having  the 
same  equipment,  would  say  that  the  figures  you  are  gathering 


EPFICIENCT  IN  THE  BEET-SUGAE  INDUSTRY. 


139 


< 


} 


\ 


{ 


should  show  very  distinctly  that  the  plant  of  large  capacity  can 
produce  sugar  at  a  less  cost  than  one  of  a  smaller  capacity.  I 
believe  you  will  find,  however,  in  comparing  these  figures,  that 
the  lesser  cost  is  due  mostly  to  labor  and  not  to  materials  used, 
although  there  is  some  slight  saving  in  the  amount  of  material 
used  per  ton  of  beets  in  a  large  factory  as  against  a  small  one. 
I  think  you  will  find  that  the  greater  saving  is  the  cost  of  over- 
hauling and  maintaining  the  factory. 

Statements  received  from  others  engaged  in  the  industry  were  in 
accordance  with  the  above,  especially  with  regard  to  labor  costs. 
There  was  some  difference  of  opinion  as  to  how  large  a  factory  should 
be  before  the  highest  degree  of  efficiency  was  attained.  Naturally 
these  differences  were  due  to  the  different  conditions  in  the  various 
localities.  An  exception  was  noted  in  the  statement  submitted  by  an 
official  of  the  Utah-Idaho  Sugar  Co.,  in  which  he  said  that  Utah  and 
Idaho  were  better  adapted  to  small  plants  of  say  450  tons  normal 
capacity.  This  was  attributed  to  the  fact  that  small  factories  could 
be  worked  to  their  utmost  capacity,  whereas  if  the  capacity  were 
increased  the  territory  would  necessarily  have  to  be  extended  which 
was  not  advisable  because  of  the  uncertainty  of  railroad  accommo- 
dations. For  example,  if  sufficiemt  cars  could  not  be  had  beets  would  - 
have  to  be  piled  at  loading  stations  which  would  entail  an  additional 
expense  in  reloading  and  also  greater  shrinkage  on  account  of  more 
beets  being  exposed  to  atmospheric  conditions. 

The  table  below  shows  the  results  of  factories  according  to  their 
size.  For  comparative  purposes,  the  total  number  of  factories  oper- 
ating during  the  campaign  1913-14  have  been  divided  into  four 
groups:  Group  I  includes  the  factories  which  sliced  less  than  500 
tons  of  beets  per  day;  Group  II,  those  slicing  more  than  500  tons 
but  less  than  800;  Group  III,  those  slicing  more  than  800  tons  but 
less  than  1,200;  and  Group  IV,  those  slicing  more  than  1,200  tons 
per  day. 

Table  31.— AVERAGE  COST  PER  100  POUNDS  OF  SUGAR  PRODUCED,  BY  GROUPS,  FOR 

THE  YEAR  1913-14.  . 


v 

Cost  of  beets. 

Labor. 

$0. 419 

.326 

-.228 

.217 

Re- 
pairs 
and 
mainte- 
nance. 

Admin- 
istra- 
tive 
and 
oflace 
ex- 
pense. 

other 

ex- 
pense 

less 
credits. 

• 

Paid 
fermer 

for 
beets. 

Freight. 

other 
beet 
ex- 
pense. 

Total. 

Net 

factory 
cost 

Group  I  (12  factories) 

Group  II  (25  factories) 

Group  III  (20  factories) .... 
Group  IV  (12  factories) 

$2,572 
2.235 
2.230 
2.121 

$0,306 
.183 
.151* 
.135 

80.307 
.217 
.158 
.130 

$3,185 
2.635 
2.539 
2.386 

$0. 216 
.195 
.139 
.122 

$0,279 
.202 
.172 
.179. 

$0,426 
.261 
.224 
.398 

$4,523 
3.619 
3.302 
3.302 

The  foregoing  table  shows  that  the  net  cost  is  without  exception 
lowest  in  the  groups  which  include  the  largest  factories,  ranging  from 


% 


\ 


ii 


/ 


140  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES. 

$3,302  in  Group  IV  to  $4,525  in  Group  I.  This  is  due  to  a  large 
extent  to  the  difference  in  beet  cost.  The  largest  factories  as  a  rule 
are  situated  in  the  best  beet  regions.  The  average  price  per  ton  of 
beets  paid  the  farmers  by  the  factories  in  the  various  groups  is 
$5.67,  $5.57,  $5.65,  and  $6.04,  respectively.  The  average  cost  for  beets 
per  100  pounds  of  sugar  produced  in  Group  I  was  33.7  cents  more 
than  m  Group  II  and  34.2  cents  more  than  in  Group  III.  The  aver- 
age price  per  ton  paid  for  beets  was  highest  in  Group  IV,  yet  the  beet 
cost  per  bag  of  sugar  was  lower  in  that  group  than  in  any  other.  The 
operatmg  costs,  excluding  the  cost  of  beets,  are  lower  in  the  larger  fac- 
tories. The  average  costs  of  labor,  repairs  and  maintenance,  and 
admimstrative  and  office  expense  are  materially  lower  in  Groups  III 
and  IV.  The  largest  difference  is  in  the  cost  of  labor,  the  average 
cost  m  Group  IV  being  only  21.7  cents  per  bag,  as  compared  with 
41.9  cents  m  Group  I. 

The  difference  in  the  costs  for  Groups  III  and  IV  are  not  great 
for  any  item.  The  average  for  other  expenses  less  credits  is  higher 
IP  the  latter  group,  since  most  of  these  factories  are  equipped 
with  Steffens  houses  (see  p.  147),  thus  reducing  the  credit  allowed 
for  molasses.  In  fact  the  operating  costs,  excluding  the  cost  of 
^  beets,  IS  10.9  cents  less  in  Group  III  than  in  Group  IV.  This  may 
be  offset  by  the  profit  on  the  additional  sugar  extracted  by  this 
process,  but  it  is  evident  any  important  advantage  obtained  by 
lactones  m  Group  IV  as  compared  with  those  in  Group  III  is  only 
m  the  cost  of  beets.  • 

In  Table  21  (p.  81)  it  is  noted  that  the  average  cost  of  produc- 
tion  for  the  5-year  period  covered  was  more  than  4  cents  per  pound 
in  28  factories.     Of  this  number,  only  one  was  rated  in  1913  as 
having  a  capacity  of  more  than  1,000  tons  per  day,  while  17  were 
rated  as  less  than  700-ton  plants.    The  average  cost  was  less  than 
4  cents  but  more  than  3^  cents  per  pound  in  17  factories,  10  of 
which  were  rated  as  being  capable  of  slicing  more  than  1,000  tons 
pes  day.     In  26  factories  the  average  cost  was  less  than  3*  cents 
per  pound,  the  rated  capacity  of  15  being  more  than  1,000  tons. 
The  largest  factories  are  included  in  this  group,  and  outside  of  the 
factories  m  Ltah  and  Idaho  there  was  only  one  whose  capacity  was 
less  than  800  tons  per  day.    Thus  it  is  seen  that,  as  a  rule,  the  costs 
are  higher  in  the  smaller  factory.    It  should  be  noted  that  the  hi^h 
cost  of  production  in  the  majority  of  the  small  factories  is  due 
to  their  inability  to  get  a  sufficient  supply  of  beets,  rather  than 
to  their  limited  capacity.     There  is  no  doubt  but  that  the  effi- 
ciency of  a  factory  depends  largely  on  its  being  able  to  work  near 
Its  ful   capacity.    As  the  size  of  the  factory  is  increased  it  becomes 
more  difficult  to  obtain  a  sufficient  supply  of  beets,  so  that  in  certain 
localities  small  plants  are  probably  just  as  efficient,  if  not  more 


/ 


EFFICIENCY  IN   THE  BEET-SUGAR  INDUSTRY. 


141 


/ 


< 


\  so,  than  larger  factories  would  be.  An  example  is  noted  in  the 
case  of  the  Utah-Idaho  Sugar  Co.  This  company  has  only  one 
factory  of  a  greater  daily  capacity  than  1,200  tons,  but  the  costs 
of  its  600  and  800  ton  factories  compare  favorably  with  the  costs 
of  the  larger  factory.  Thus  it  is  shown  that  while  the  results  by 
comparison,  in  general,  are  in  favor  of  large-scale  operations,  a 
\  comparison  of  individual  factories  would  sometimes  be  favorable 
to  small  ones. 

Section  3.  Important  economic  advantage  of  favorable  location. 

It  is  obvious  that  mechanical  efficiency  is  possible  almost  anywhere. 
This  is  not  by  any  means  true  as  to  economic  efficiency.  In  respect 
to  the  latter,  location  is  of  prime  importance.  This  must  be  con- 
sidered with  respect  to  the  quality  and  quantity  of  beets  which  cau 
be  and  which  are  likely  to  be  produced  in  the  vicinity,  the  procuring 
of  factory  supplies  and  labor  at  comparatively  low  cost,  and  prox- 
imity to  markets  for  sugar  and  the  by-products  from  its  manufac- 
ture. While  it  may  not  be  possible  for  a  factory  to  have  the  great- 
est advantage  in  all  of  these  respects,  it  should  be  located  with  due 
regard  to  all  and  with  particular  regard  to  the  first. 

Location  with  respect  to  the  supply  of  beets. — It  is  probable 
that  a  great  majority  of  the  failures  among  beet  sugar  factories  has 
been  due  to  poor  location  in  respect  to  the  supply  of  beets.  There 
should  be  a  supply  sufficient  to  assure  an  operating  period  of  ap- 
proximately 3  months  at  least.  These  beets  must  contain  a  sufficient 
percentage  of  sugar  to  warrant  their  manufacture.  It  would  thus 
seem  that  in  locating  a  factory  the  first  element  to  be  considered  is 
the  quality  of  beets  that  can  be  grown  in  a  locality  and,  second,  the 
quantity.  While  the  climate  and  soil  in  a  large  part  of  the  United 
States  will  permit  the  growing  of  sugar  beets,  the  beets  grown  in  a 
large  portion  of  this  area  do  not  have  a  high  sugar  content.  This 
materially  limits  the  area  in  which  factories  can  be  built  with  the 
reasonable  expectation  of  success.  This  report  shows  that  as  a 
rule  the  beet  cost  of  the  factory  is  lowest  in  the  factory  located  in 
the  regions  where  the  best  beets  are  grown,  and  since  the  beet  cost 
represents  such  a  large  percentage  of  the  total  cost,  the  net  factory 
cost  of  sugar  is  also  usually  lower  in  these  factories.  While  the 
higher  average  extraction  in  some  factories  is  due  to  the  employ^ 
ment  of  the  Steffens  process  and  also  to  a  slight  extent  to  superior 
mechanical  efficiency,  it  is  mainly  due  to  the  difference  in  the  quality 
of  the  beets  worked. 

^  The  75  factories  operating  all  or  part  of  the  time  during  the  5 

years  ending  with  the  season  1913-14  have  been  divided  into  three 
groups  according  to  the  average  extraction  of  sugar  per  ton  of  beets 


f 


II 


142  THE   BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES. 

sliced.  Group  I  includes  those  in  which  the  average  extraction  was 
more  than  270  pounds  per  ton,  Group  II  embraces  those  in  which 
the  extraction  was  more  than  240  pounds  but  less  than  270  pounds, 
and  those  having  an  average  extraction  of  less  than  240  pounds  are 
included  in  Group  III.    The  results  are  shown  in  Table  32  below : 

Table  32.— COMPARISON  OF  THE  AVERAGE  COST  OF  BEETS  AND  THE  NET  COST  OF 
PRODUCTION,  NOT  INCLUDING  DEPRECIATION,  DURING  THE  5-YEAR  PERIOD  1909-13, 
BY  FACTORIES  GROUPED  ACCORDING  TO  THE  AMOUNT  OF  SUGAR  EXTRACTED  PER 
TON  OF  BEETS  SLICED. 


Group  I  (includes  18  factories). . 
Group  II  (includes  27  factories) . 
Group  III  (includes  30  factories) 

Total  for  United  States. . . 


Cost  of  beets. 


Average 
Extrac- 
tion 
(pounds). 


Per  ton      Per  100 

of  beets  I  jwunds 

sliced.    I  (u  sugar. 


299.6 
255.4 
221.7 


$6.46 
6.54 
7.18 


264.5 


6.68 


Net  cost. 


Per  ton 
of  beets 
sliced. 


S2. 16 
2.56 
3.24 


$9.51 
8.97 
9.25 


2.52 


9.27 


Per  100 
pounds 
of  sugar. 


^.17 
3.51 
4.17 


3.50 


A  particularly  significant  fact  disclosed  by  the  foregoing  table  is 
that  the  cost  of  beets  per  ton  was  lowest  for  those  having  the  high^ 
est  sugar  extraction.  This  was  due  to  two  main  causes — first,  the 
factories  working  the  poorest  beets  had  difficulty  in  getting  them  at 
all  and  had  to  pay  the  farmer  more  than  the  sugar  in  them  was 
worth;  and,  second,  the  difficulty  in  securing  beets  forced  them  to 
be  brought  from  a  wider  territory,  with  the  result  that  incidental 
expenses  and  freight  charges  were  inordinately  high.  The  average 
cost  of  beets  per  ton  in  Group  I,  with  an  extraction  of  almost  exactly 
300  pounds  per  ton,  was  $6.46,  while  in  Group  III,  with  an  average 
extraction  of  only  222  pounds,  the  cost  of  beets  was  $7.18  per  ton. 
In  other  words,  the  factories  in  Group  III  paid  72  cents  more  for 
222  pounds  of  sugar  than  those  in  Group  I  paid  for  300  pounds. 
This  condition  is  strikingly  reflected  in  the  cost  of  beets  per  100 
pounds  of  sugar.  In  Group  I,  with  an  extraction  of  approximately 
300  pounds  per  ton,  the  factory  paid  $1.08  per  100  pounds  less  for 
the  sugar  in  the  beets  than  was  paid  by  the  factories  in  Group  III 
that  had  an  extraction  of  only  222  pounds.  The  cost  of  beets  per  100 
pounds  of  sugar  was  40  cents  more  in  Group  II  than  in  Group  I, 
although  the  extraction  per  ton  of  beets  was  44  pounds  less. 

The  net  cost  in  Group  I,  where  the  cost  of  beets  was  lowest,  was 
exactly  $1  less  than  in  Group  III,  where  the  cost  of  beets  was  highest, 
and  it  was  34  cents  less  than  in  Group  II,  where  the  cost  of  beets  was 
40  cents  higher.  The  difference  in  the  cost  of  beets  per  100  pounds  of 
sugar  more  than  accounts  for  the  difference  in  the  net  cost  of  produc- 


1- 


r 


y^ 


K 


p 


/9 


f' 


't 


K 


EFFICIENCY  IN   THE  BEET-SUGAR  INDUSTRY. 


143 


tion  in  each  case.  It  is  thus  apparent  that  a  low  cost  of  production 
must  depend  primarily  on  a  low  beet  cost,  and  the  lowest  beet  cost  is 
in  the  factories  in  regions  that  produce  the  best  beets.  Of  the  fac- 
tories whose  net  cost  was  more  than  $3.50  per  100  pounds,  in  only 
three  was  the  average  extraction  more  than  270  pounds,  and  their 
high  cost  is  due  to  the  fact  that  not  enough  beets  were  secured  for  a 
profitable  run.  Of  those  whose  net  cost  was  less  than  $3.50  per  100 
pounds,  in  only  one  case  was  the  average  extraction  less  than  235 
pounds  per  ton,  and  it  was  able  to  secure  its  beets  at  much  below  the 
average  cost.  The  factories  included  in  Group  I  produced  47  per 
cent  of  the  total  quantity  produced  by  the  75  factories  during  thi- 
period,  while  the  factories  included  in  Groups  II  and  III  produced 
31  per  cent  and  22  per  cent,  respectively. 

All  of  the  factories  having  the  most  favorable  location  with  respect 
to  the  quality  of  beets  are  located  west  of  the  Mississippi  Kiver.  The 
18  factories  included  in  Group  I  of  Table  32  are  all  in  that  region. 
Of  these,  8  are  in  California,  5  in  Colorado,  2  in  Idaho,  and  1  each 
in  Utah,  Montana,  and  Kansas.  Of  the  27  factories  in  Group  II,  20 
are  west  of  the  Mississippi.  Of  this  20,  7  are  in  Colorado,  4  each  in 
California  and  Utah,  3  in  Idaho,  and  1  each  in  Nebraska  and  Ne- 
vada. Of  the  remaining  7,  6  are  in  Michigan  and  1  in  Wisconsin. 
Of  the  30  factories  having  an  extraction  of  less  than  240  pounds  of 
sugar  per  ton  of  beets,  only  10  are  west  of  the  Mississippi.  These 
figures  emphasize  the  superior  quality  of  the  beets  grown  in  Colo- 
rado and  the  West  as  compared  with  those  grown  in  the  Lake  States. 

One  of  the  chief  inherent  disadvantages  of  the  industry  is  the 
shortness  of  the  campaign,  the  average  length  of  the  campaign  in 
California  for  the  five-year  period  being  only  109  days  and  this  was 
from  12  to  63  days  longer  than  in  any  other  State.  The  results  in 
many  factories  would  be  much  more  satisfactory  if  enough  beets 
could  be  had  to  insure  a  longer  campaign.  This  is  shown  by  the 
following  excerpt  from  a  statement  issued  by  the  officers  of  one  com- 
pany to  its  stockholders  at  the  end  of  the  1913  campaign : 

The  campaign  just  closed  has  been  like  the  four  preceding 
ones,  extremely  disappointing.  The  tonnage  of  beets  secured 
has  not  been  sufficient  to  give  our  mill  a  profitable  run.  The 
burden  of  debt  accumulated  as  the  result  of  the  many  adverse 
circumstances  against  which  the  company  has  had  to  contend 
has  become  so  great  that  it  can  no  longer  be  carried. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  overhead  charges  for  salaries,  taxes,  etc.,  are 
practically  the  same  in  a  factory  whether  it  operated  for  a  long  or 
short  period.  The  average  cost  for  these  items  per  100  pounds  of 
sugar  produced  are  therefore  higher  in  factories  operating  for  a  short 
time.  This  is  also  often  true  of  other  items  of  cost.  This  is  shown 
by  the  higher  manufacturing  cost  for  such  factories  as  compared 


-:t 


144  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES.      . 

with  the  cost  of  those  which  operated  for  a  longer  period.  The 
average  manufacturing  cost  of  the  factories  whose  average  campaign 
for  the  5-year  period  was  less  than  70  days  was  $1.40  per  100  pounds, 
as  compared  with  95  cents  for  those  which  were  in  operation  longer 
than  70  days.  Of  the  19  factories  whose  average  length  of  campaign 
was  less  than  70  days  in  only  3  was  the  manufacturing  cost  less  than 
$1,  while  in  5  it  was  more  than  $2  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  produced. 

A  concrete  idea  of  the  importance  of  a  sufficient  supply  of  beets  to 
operate  a  factory  at  its  normal  capacity  can  be  had  by  considering  a 
few  instances  where  the  supply  was  greatly  deficient.  It  is  generally 
agreed  among  beet  sugar  manufacturers  that  the  highest  efficiency  in 
a  beet  sugar  factory  depends  mainly  upon  being  operated  at  practi- 
cally full  capacity  for  a  period  of  100  days.  The  figures  used  in  these 
illustrations  are  based  upon  such  an  operating  period.  A  factory, 
mechanically  well  equipped,  and  having  a  capacity  of  900  tons,  had 
only  about  30,000  tons  of  beets  in  1913,  when  it  should  have  had 
90,000  tons.  Another  factory  with  a  daily  capacity  of  500  tons  sliced 
during  that  year  less  than  8,000  tons,  when  the  most  efficient  opera- 
tion would  have  required  50,000  tons.  Still  another,  with  a  daily 
capacity  of  600  tons  sliced  less  than  17,000  tons  of  beets  instead  of 
60J300  tons  which  it  should  have  had.  These  are  striking  examples 
of  economic  inefficiency,  and  a  number  of  others  almost  if  not  quite 
as  significant  could  be  cited. 

Inability  to  secure  a  sufficient  quantity  of  beets,  however,  can  not 
always  be -foreseen.  This  is  especially  true  in  localities  where  the  in- 
dustry is  not  well  established.  The  failure  of  irrigation  projects, 
the  introduction  of  better  paying  crops,  or  the  general  dissatisfaction 
among  growers  may  change  what  promises  to  be  an  ideal  beet  region 
into  a  poor  one.  In  one  case  it  is  said  that  as  an  inducement  the 
chamber  of  commerce  of  a  certain  town  represented  to  the  promoters 
of  a  factory  that  they  had  signed  contracts  for  the  growing  of  several 
thousand  acres  of  beets.  After  the  factory  had  been  moved  there,  it 
developed  that  the  contracts  were  signed  largely  by  people  who  owned 
no  land  and  who  never  intended  to  grow  beets.  In  other  cases  larger 
factories  have  been  built  than  the  immediate  vicinity  would  or  could 
supply,  and  the  factory  has  been  either  compelled  to  grow  its  own 
beets  at  a  higher  cost  or  secure  its  beets  at  a  greater  distance  from  the 
factory  with  a  .consequent  inordinately  high  cost.  The  lack  of 
beets  in  certain  sections  may  also  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  facto- 
ries and  growers  have  failed  to  fully  realize  the  proper  relation  that 
should  be  maintained  between  the  factory  and  the  beet  grower. 

Labor  and  factory  supplies  are  less  important,  since  the  cost  for 
these  items  represents  a  smaller  per  cent  of  the  total  cost.  Differences 
in  costs  are  also  due  to  the  difference  in  the  size  of  the  factory,  as 


tV 


•J 


r 


'  t 


\ 


il. 


.,   1 1# 


EFFICIENCY    IN   THE  BEET-SUGAR  INDUSTRY. 


145 


shown  in  section  2  (see  p.  137) .  Differences  in  the  labor  costs  and  ad- 
ministrative and  office  expense  are  also  due  to  the  fact  that  wages 
and  salaries  are  materially  higher  in  the  West  than  in  the  Lake 
States.  The  cost  of  fuel  also  varies  to  some  extent  in  the  various 
factories.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  high  cost  of  freight  on  the 
supplies  used  in  connection  with  the  manufacture  of  sugar  or  even 
the  high  cost  of  labor  would  preclude  any  factory  from  manufactur- 
ing sugar  profitably  if  sufficient  beets  of  a  good  quality  were  avail- 
able. 

Advantage  of  proximity  to  markets. — Since  the  price  of  beet 
sugar  is  based  primarily  on  the  price  of  refined  cane  sugar  at  the 
seaboard,  it  is  obvious  that  any  advantage  obtained  in  markets  must  l 
be  due  to  the  location  of  the  factories  Avith  respect  to  this  competi- 
tion. Prices  for  sugar,  therefore,  are  higher  at  interior  markets  than 
at  points  nearer  the  refineries.  The  factories  which  have  the  greatest  j 
advantage  in  this  respect,  however,  are  located  in  the  sections  of  the 
country  which  consume  the  least  sugar,  so  that  their  advantage  is 
not  as  great  as  it  would  be  if  they  were  able  to  sell  all  of  their  prod- 
uct locally  or  in  near-by  States.  The  average  price  received  by  the 
factories  in  the  various  States  and  the  cost  of  selling  per  100  pounds 
of  sugar,  including  freight,  during  the  five-year  period  is  shown  in 
the  following  table : 

Table  33.-COMPARISON  OF  THE  AVERAGE  PRICES  RECEIVED  FOR  BEET  SUGAR; 
THE  COST  OF  SELLING  AND  THE  NET  PRICE  RECEIVED  AT  THE  FACTORY  PER  100 
POUNDS,  FOR  THE  5-YEAR  PERIOD  1909^13,  BY  STATES. 


State. 

Selling 
price. 

Cost  of 
selling. 

Net  price 
at  factory. 

California 

$4. 8795 
4.9231 
5.0835 
4.8251 
4.9327 
4.7C02 
5.1573 
4.9838 

$0. 4574 
.4462 
.5780 
.3010 
.2616 
.3429 
.4953 
.2986 

S4. 4221 

Colorado 

4.4769 

Utah-Idaho 

4.5055 

Michigan  i 

4.5241 

Wisconsin ^ 

4. 6711 

Ohio 

4.4173 

Montana-Nebraska 

4.6620 

Other  States  2 

4.6852 

Total,  United  States 

4.9277 

.4278 

4.4999 

1  Includes  factories  at  Decatur,  Ind.,  and  Paulding,  Ohio. 

>  Includes  factories  in  Arizona,  Nevada,  Kansas,  Oregon,  Minnesota,  and  Iowa. 

In  the  above  table  it  is  seen  that  the  price  at  which  sugar  is  sold 
is  highest  in  Montana-Nebraska  and  Utah-Idaho  and  lowest  in  Ohio 
and  Michigan.  In  California  competition  with  the  refineries  at  San 
Francisco  is  encountered  so  that  the  selling  price  is  lower  than  in 
other  Western  States.  Factories,  although  located  at  a  great  dis- 
tance from  the  large  consuming  centers,  are  enabled  to  realize  as 
high  an  average  price  for  their  product  as  those  which  disposed  of 


j 


V 


1 1 


a 


146  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY   IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 

their  product  on  lower  freight  rates.  For  example,  in  Utah-Idaho 
the  average  net  price  received  was  only  2  cents  per  100  pounds  less 
than  the  price  in  Michigan,  although  the  cost  of  selling,  including 
the  freight,  was  28  cents  more.  The  average  net  price  received  at 
the  factory  was  highest  for  the  factories  included  in  the  group 
"  Other  States,"  Wisconsin  and  Montana-Nebraska,  while  the  lowest 
was  in  Ohio  and  California.  The  larger  part  of  the  product  of  the 
factories  in  the  first-named  States  is  disposed  of  locally  or  in  adjoin- 
ing States,  thus  giving  them  a  decided  advantage  over  companies 
which  must  sell  the  greater  part  of  their  product  in  competitive 
territory  on  higher  freight  rates.  In  two  companies  the  average  net 
price  received  for  the  five-year  period  was  $5.11  and  $5.29  per  100 
pounds,  respectively,  while  the  average  for  all  companies  in  the 
United  States  was  only  $4.50.  In  large  companies,  however,  the  dif- 
ference in  the  average  net  price  received  is  less,  rarely  exceeding  20 
or  30  cents  per  100  pounds. 

Some  advantage  is  also  obtained  in  the  marketing  of  the  two  chief 
by-products  from  the  manufacture  of  sugar,  namely,  pulp  and 
molasses.  In  Chapter  III  (see  p.  61),  the  net  value  of  these  products 
s  affecting  the  net  cost  of  production  is  discussed.  In  Table  10 
^(see  p.  82),  it  is  shown  that  the  profit  from  these  sources  is  greater 
in  the  factories  located  in  the  Lake  States  than  in  factories  located 
in  the  West.  The  advantage  obtained  with  respect  to  molasses  is 
largely  overcome,  however,  by  the  use  of  certain  processes  by  which 
a  large  per  cent  of  the  sugar  in  the  molasses  is  extracted. 

Section  4.  Comparisons  based  on  factory  equipment. 

Most  of  the  beet-sugar  factories  in  the  United  States  are  similarly 
equipped,  except  as  to  that  portion  of  their  equipment  provided  for 
the  utilization  of  by-products.  There  are  but  two  by-products 
resulting  from  the  manufacture  of  sugar  from  beets  that  have  any 
important  value.  These  are  pulp  and  molasses.  A  number  of 
factories  have  special  equipment  for  the  better  utilization  of  one  or 
both  of  these  by-products.  Pulp  and  molasses  are  both  utilized  to 
advantage  by  all  factories.  Some,  however,  are  so  situated  as  to 
require  special  equipment  for  their  most  advantageous  utilization.  . 
Pulp  is  utilized  entirely  as  a  food  for  stock,  and  this  is  in  a  great 
measure  also  true  of  molasses,  though  the  latter  is  used  to  some 
extent  in  the  manufacture  of  alcohol. 

Where  pulp  can  not  be  sold  to  advantage  in  its  green  state  at  the 
factory,  it  is  necessary  to  dry  it  in  order  that  it  may  be  shipped  at 
a  reasonable  cost.  The  molasses  resulting  from  the  process  of  sugar 
manufacture  contains  a  large  percentage  of  sugar,  and  unless  there 
is  a  profitable  market  for  the  molasses  itself  it  is  often  profitable 
to  extract  the  sugar  left  therein.    There  are  two  or  three  processes 


•I 


')'••' 


( 


/ 


a 


h 


I 


A 


!'■ 


^ii 


EFFICIENCY  IN   THE  BEET-SUGAR  INDUSTRY. 


147 


for  the  extraction  of  sugar  from  molasses,  but  that  principally  used 
in  this  country  is  known  as  the  Steffens  process. 

Steffens  process. — While  beet  sugar  molasses  contains  a  large  per 
cent  of  sugar  it  is  not  used  for  human  food  because  of  the  large 
quantity  of  mineral  salts  present.  These  mineral  substances  prevent 
the  sugar  from  crystalizing  by  t\m  use  of  the  ordinary  processes  of 
clarifying,  and  special  processes  have  been  employed  in  extracting 
the  sugar  from  the  molasses.  As  just  stated,  the  most  common 
method  is  the  Steffens  process.  About  25  pounds  of  sugar  are  ex- 
tracted from  the  molasses  resulting  from  the  working  of  each  ton  of 
beets.  All  the  sugar  in  the  molasses,  however,  is  not  recovered,  the 
proportion  varying  from  80  to  90  per  cent  of  the  sugar  content  of 
the  molasses.  By  the  Steffens  process  a  larger  percentage  of  the 
sugar  is  recovered  than  by  other  processes. 

Whether  it  is  profitable  to  use  this  process  depends  upon  the  price 
of  molasses  and  of  sugar.  If  the  market  value  of  molasses  is  high, 
say  about  $12  to  $15  per  ton,  it  is  the  general  opinion  that  it  is  not 
profitable  to  install  a  Steffens  plant  unless  tile  price  of  sugar  is  very 
high.  The  manager  of  an  e^astern  factory  stated  that  he  questioned 
the  practicability  of  operating  a  Steffens  house,  even  after  the  plant 
had  been  constructed,  with  molasses  at  $12  per  ton ;  and  that  if  the 
price  of  molasses  had  been  as  high  when  the  industry  was  started 
in  this  country  as  it  is  now  no  Steffens  plants  would  have  been 
erected.  Since  molasses  is  used  chiefly  for  a  stock  food,  much  de- 
pends therefore  on  the  location  of  the  factory.  Factories  near  the 
stock- feeding  sections  may  be  able  to  dispose  of  their  molasses  at  a 
high  price  while  those  some  distance  from  these  markets  may  find  it 
more  profitable  to  convert  as  much  of  their  molasses  into  sugar  as 
possible.  A  few  factories  are  able  to  dispose  of  their  molasses  to 
manufacturers  of  alcohol. 

In  1913  there  were  at  least  26  factories  equipped  with  Steffens 
houses.  Of  these  6  were  located  in  California,  six  in  Colorado,  5  in 
Michigan,  2  each  in  Ohio  and  Wisconsin,  and  1  each  in  Kansas,  Ne- 
braska, Montana,  Utah,  and  Idaho.  The  Steffens  plants  in  the  Wis- 
consin factories  have  not  been  operated  for  some  years.  It  is  im- 
portant to  note  in  this  connection  that  more  molasses  is  subjected  to 
this  process  than  that  produced  by  the  factories  operating  Steffens 
houses.  Some  concerns  buy  molasses  from  other  factories  and  some 
companies  having  two  or  more  factories  have  a  Steffens  plant  in  one 
and  ship  the  molasses  from  their  other  plants  to  this  factory.  For 
instance,  the  Great  Western  Sugar  Co.  has  9  plants  located  in  north- 
ern Colorado,  only  4  of  which  are  equipped  with  Steffens  houses,  but 
the  molasses  from  the  other  5  plants  is  worked  up  in  these  4  Steffens 
plants. 


1| 
I 


f 


I 


I 


t 

148  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

During  the  season  of  1913-14  there  were  23  factories  operating 

aftf 'thi'      f  ■    ^\'  Tu'^'  P^**"*  ""  "'^  ^««'<^-'  molasse^that  -r, 
in  sir   fT  ?'*^  'T.  '''^^^^  *'^^*'"«'^  ""«  process-was  17.2 

remaining  46  factories  in  operation  that  year  amounted  to  39  1  cents 

as  much  from  this  by-product  as  was  realized  by  the  factories  which 
sold  their  entire  output  of  molasses  would  have  had  to  extract  enough 
additional  sugar  to  overcome  all  expenses  incidental  to  operating  S 
maintaining  the  process,  and  in  addition  about  5*,  pounds  from  each 
ton  of  beets  worked,  assuming  that  the  net  value  of  sugar  wSl 
cents  per  pound.  The  costs  incidental  to  the  Steffens  procesf  werSot 
reported  separately  by  all  companies  and  as  stated  above  mZfac 

idTtaW  r  ''""^  f ''••^''  **^'"™^'  ^"  *^*  tJ^^  St^ffen«  coste  in- 

cidental to  workmg  up  their  own  product  can  not  be  ascertained 

However  the  cost  of  operating  and  maintaining  the  process  in  two 

ZTT'l  '"*?"  T'v!*  ^'^  "*>*  P"-'^^-  mola'^'wVs  onTy 
about  10  cents  per  ton  of  beets  worked.    The  cost- per  ton  of  beets 
worked  no  doubt  would  be  somewhat  higher  in  a  smaUer  factory  bu 
.t  IS  apparently  fair  to  assume  that  if  the  factories  which  had  Steffens 
plants  increased  their  average  extraction  10  pounds  they  reaHzed  as 

The  average  extraction  for  the  factories  not  employing  the  process 

wh  ch  hT^i'^  'T""^'  "'^"^  *^^  ^--^«  extraction  of  rS 

vvmie  this  difference  is  partially  due  to  the  better  qualitv  of  beets 

StSt"  *"  *'t  1'^*""^^^  ^"^^^  "^*^^-<^  from' the  mo^ase^lv 
the  latter  factories.    In  the  statement  below  are  shown  the  results  for 

the  five  years  1909  to  1913  in  two  California  factoriS,  one  w hh 
Steffens  process  and  one  without,  where  the  difference  in  qualitv  of 
tee  s  was  not  great.  The  average  purity  of  the  beets  worked  by  each 
factory  was  above  85  per  cent.  ^ 


Factory  No.  1 

(without  Steffens 

process). 


Factory  No.  2 
(with  Steffens  proc- 
ess). 


1909-10. 
1910-11. 
1911-12. 
1912-13. 
1913-14. 


tion.       content. 


content. 


Average,  5  years. 


Per  cent. 

18.88 
18.  8i 
18.87 
18.87 
18.06 


Pounds. 
304.4 

310.6 

311.2 

298.6 

281.0 


Average 
extrac- 
tion. 


18.68 


300.5 


Percent. 
17.33 

18.28 

18.03 

18.80 

18.57 


18.16 


Pounds. 
306.4 

337.6 
341  8 
341.2 
345.  S 


i 


,t- 


V 


EFFICIENCY  IN  THE  BEET-SUGAE  INDUSTRY. 


149 


333.6 


Factory  No.  1  was  not  equipped  with  a  Steffens  plant,  and 
although  the  average  sugar  content  of  its  beets  was  generally  higher 
than  m  factory  No.  2,  the  extraction  in  each  year  was  less  than  in 
the  latter  factory.  The  purity  of  the  beets  worked  in  factory  No. 
1  was  also  higher  than  in  factory  No.  2  in  4  of  the  5  years,  and  in 
1913-14  practically  the  same.  For  the  5-year  period  the  sugar  con- 
tent  of  the  beets  sliced  in  the  former  factory  was  0.52  per  cent 
higher,  while  the  average  extraction  was  33  pounds  per  ton  less. 
Thus  it  is  seen  that  by  employing  this  process  the  extraction  is  mate- 
rially increased.  While  the  per  cent  of  increase  would  be  less  in 
factories  shcing  a  lower  grade  of  beets,  the  average  extraction  for 
all  factories  would  probably  have  been  increased  25  pounds  per  ton 
of  beets  had  the  molasses  from  all  factories  been  subjected  to  this 
process. 

While  it  would  seem  that  if  the  extraction  could  be  increased  by 
this  amount,  a  Steffens  house  would  almost  be  necessary  to  the 
equipment  of  an  efficient  factory,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
cost  of  mstalling  the  process  is  high  and  much  more  labor  is  required 
m  a  factory  so  equipped.  Companies  which  have  more  than  one 
factory  might  find  it  profitable  to  install  a  Steffens  house  at  one 
of  Its  factories,  which  could  utilize  the  molasses  from  those  not  so 
equipped,  while  a  company  with  only  one  factory  and  of  small 
capacity  could  not  do  so  at  a  profit.  Others  have  a  good  market  for 
their  molasses,  so  that  a  company  adding  this  process  should  be 
governed  largely  by  the  conditions  peculiar  to  its  own  factory  or 
factories. 

Pulp  driers.— When  beets  are  worked  about  80  per  cent  of  their 
weight  comes  out  in  the  form  of  palp.    As  this  pulp  comes  from  the 
factory  it  contains  a  small  amount  of  sugar,  most  of  the  nonsugars 
or  impurities  shown  in  the  chemical  analysis  of  the  beets  and  a  large 
per  cent  of  water.    In  the  green  or  undried  state  it  can  not  be  kept 
for  any  great  length  of  time  nor  can  it  be  profitably  transported  anv 
considerable  distance.    It  is  used  for  stock^food,  and  where  it  can  nJt 
be  fed  to  cattle  or  sheep  in  the  locality  of  the  factory  it  must  eithei 
be  dried  for  shipment  or  go  to  waste.    In  the  earlier  days  of  the  in^ 
dustry  practically  all  the  pulp  was  disposed  of  at  the  factory.     In 
fact,  much  of  it  was  given  away  to  farmers  supplying  the  factory 
with  beets.    It  is  said  that  in  the  State  of  Michigan  there  were  times 
when  considerable  pulp  had  to  be  removed  as  waste.    This  fact  prob 
ably  resulted  in  the  installation  of  driers,  since  the  first  drying  appli- 
ances were  installed  in  that  State. 

The  pulp  is  dried  in  revolving  cylindrical  drums,  the  heat  being 
applied  either  directly  from  hot  gases  or  indirectly  by  steam.    The 
more  recently  installed  driers  are  of  the  steam  type! 
87731—17 11 


f 


!| 


M 


I 


raan^sr 


150  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDtTSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 

An  increased  demand  for  dried  pulp  is  indicated  by  the  number 
of  factories  which  have  added  driers  to  their  plant  equipment  in 
recent  years.  In  1908,  according  to  the  report  issued  by  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  (Report  No.  90,  Progress  of  the  Beet  Sugar  In- 
dustry in  the  United  States,  1908)  there  were  only  11  factories  which 
had  driers,  all  of  which  were  located  in  the  Lake  States.  In  191o 
there  were  30  factories  reporting  sales  of  dried  pulp.  These  factories 
were  distributed  as  follows:  Fifteen  in  Michigan,  5  in  California,  4 
m  Wisconsin,  3  in  Ohio,  and  1  each  in  Indiana,  Kansas,  and  Minne- 
sota. It  will  be  noted  that  the  5  factories  in  California  have  installed 
driers  since  1908,  and  that  there  are  no  driers  in  Colorado.  The 
absence  of  pulp  driers  in  Colorado  factories  is  no  doubt  due  mainly 
to  the  fact  that  there  is  sale  for  the  pulp  to  the  cattle  feeders  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  factories  and  partly  to  the  fact  that  these  factories  are 
such  a  distance  from  other  cattle- feeding  regions  that  freight  on  the 
pulp  is  so  high  as  to  absorb  most  of  the  profits. 

In  some  localities  dried  pulp  is  sold  for  as  much  as  $20  per  ton. 
The  comparative  advantage  of  selling  pulp  green  or  dried  is  diffi- 
cult to  state  with  exactness.  This  depends  of  course  upon  the  location 
of  the  factory  with  respect  to  cattle  feeders  and  upon  the  price  of 
other  foods.  One  factory  in  California  sells  its  pulp  in  the  wet  state, 
and  during  the  three  years  ending  with  the  season  1913  realized  a 
profit  for  pulp  of  only  12  cents  per  ton  of  beets  worked.  In  another 
California  factory,  equipped  with  a  drier,  the  profit  was  $1.11  per 
ton  of  beets  worked.  The  installation  of  a  drier  costs  approximately 
$100,000,  and  with  the  prices  for  dried  pulp  that  have  prevailed  in 
recent  years  this  seems  to  be  a  profitable  investment. 

In  Table  19  (see  p.  82)  there  is  shown  the  average  net  value  of 
pulp  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  produced  during  the  5-year  period  by 
States.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  averages  for  Wisconsin,  Michigan, 
and  Ohio,  where  most  of  the  factories  are  equipped  with  driers,  are 
materially  higher  than  in  other  States.  Since  the  date  of  installation 
of  pulp  driers  in  a  number  of  factories  is  not  precisely  known  to  the 
commission  it  is  not  possible  to  make  comparisons  in  the  industry 
as  a  whole  except  for  the  one  year  1913-14.  Of  the  69  factories 
operating  in  that  year  from  which  reports  were  obtained  30  reported 
the  sale  of  dried  pulp.  The  net  profit  on  pulp  realized  by  those 
factories  having  driers  was  21.2  cents  per  100  pounds  of  sugar  pro- 
duced, while  in  the  other  39  factories  which  had  no  driers  the  profit 

was  only  5.7  cents. 

The  importance  of  this  by-product  is  also  indicated  by  a  com- 
parison of  the  profits  from  this  source  with  the  total  earnings  for 
all  companies.  The  total  earnings  in  the  beet  sugar  business  in 
1913-14  before  deducting  depreciation  was  $5,777,226.92,  and 
$1,610,351.78,  or  28  per  cent  of  this,  was  net  receipts  on  pulp.    If 


i 


() 


0 


V 


/ 


t^ 


< 


r^ 


/. 


I 


I 


> 


i 


EFFICIENCY  IN   THE  BEET-SUGAR  INDUSTKY. 


151 


all  the  factories  operating  in  that  year  had  been  equipped  with  pulp 
driers  and  had  they  all  realized  this  rate  of  profit  on  pulp,  the 
earnings  in  the  industry  as  a  whole  would  have  increased  nearly 
$1,500,000.  While  it  is  not  reasonable  to  assume  that  all  factories 
could  have  realized  so  large  a  profit  from  this  source,  due  to  the  faci 
that  some  are  inaccessible  to  the  markets,  these  figures  do  indicate 
that  a  pulp  drier  is  a  very  important  factor  in  the  efficient  equipment 
of  those  factories  within  reach  of  dried  pulp  markets. 

Section  5.  Conclusions. 

There  is  opportunity  for  materially  increased  efficiency  in  many 
beet  sugar  factories.  The  figures  in  Table  17  (see  p.  78)  abundantly 
confirm  this  view.  During  the  5  years  covered  by  this  report  fac- 
tory numbered  17,  as  shown  in  that  table,  had  an  average  conver- 
sion cost  of  only  44  cents  per  100  pounds  of  sugar,  not  including 
depreciation.  Other  factories  in  the  same  vicinity,  and  some  of 
them  operated  by  the  same  company  that  operates  factory  No.  17, 
had  a  cost  of  from  65  cents  to  $1.  Factory  No.  26  had  a  conver- 
sion cost  of  87  cents,  while  factory  No.  25,  operated  by  the  same 
company  in  the  same  State,  had  a  cost  of  $1.16.  Factory  No.  37 
had  a  cost  of  77  cents,  while  other  factories  operated  by  the  same 
company  in  the  same  immediate  region  had  costs  ranging  as  high 
as  $1.08.  The  costs  of  conversion  here  enumerated  are  the  net  cost 
after  deducting  the  net  profits  from  by-products.  The  factories  In 
each  of  the  groups  here  enumerated  operated  under  similar  condi 
tions  with  respect  to  the  supply  and  quality  of  beets.  Comparisons 
of  this  sort  could  be  multiplied. 

While  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  every  beet  sugar  factory  could 
reduce  its  conversion  cost  to  44  cents  per  100  pounds,  it  is  not 
unreasonable  to  conclude  that  no  factory  that  is  well  located  with 
respect  to  an  ample  supply  of  beets  of  good  quality  should  have  a 
net  conversion  cost  of  as  much  as  $1  per  100  pounds  of  sugar. 
It  at  least  seems  probable  that  with  even  ordinary  regard  for  effi- 
ciency in  equipment  and  methods  of  operation  the  average  cost  of 
conversion  in  a  considerable  number  of  factories  could  be  greatly 
reduced.  Of  course  no  degree  of  efficiency  in  operation  can  result 
in  a  low  cost  of  conversion  for  those  factories  so  situated  as  to  have 
an  inadequate  supply  of  beets  or  those  in  regions  where  the  quality 
of  the  beets  is  extremelv  low. 


I 


SUGAR  MANUFACTUREES  AND  BEET  GKOWEES. 


153 


CHAPTER  VII. 

RELATIONS  BETWEEN  SUGAR  MANTJFACTTJRERS  AND  BEET 

GROWERS. 

Section  1.  Interdependence  of  the  two  interests. 

Perhaps  no  other  manufacturing  industry  is  so  sensibly  dependent 
upon  agriculture  as  the  beet  sugar  industry.  On  the  other  hand,  no 
other  branch  of  farming  of  equal  importance  is  so  entirely  dependent 
upon  a  strictly  local  industry.  Other  industries  are  dependent  upon 
the  farmer  for  their  principal  raw  material,  but  their  relations  with 
the  farmer  are  so  distant  as  not  to  be  a  sensitive  factor.  The  cotton 
manufacturer  and  the  miller  must  depend  upon  the  cotton  and  grain 
grower  respectively  for  their  supplies  of  raw  material,  but  millions  of 
farmers  in  various  parts  of  the  world  grow  these  commodities.  These 
farm  products  are  of  such  a  character  and  their  manufacture  is -of 
such  a  nature  that  they  can  be  economically  shipped  thousands  of 
miles.  Thus  the  farmer  and  the  manufacturer  may  be  widely  sep- 
arated. 

Sugar  beets,  however,  can  not  be  economically  shipped  a  long  dis- 
tance. Only  about  12J  per  cent  of  the  weight  of  beets  is  extractable 
sugar,  the  extreme  range  being  from  about  10  per  cent  to  about  16 
per  cent,  and  the  average  is  about  12^  per  cent.  Thus,  if  freight 
charges  on  a  ton  of  beets  is  40  cents,  or  2  cents  per  100  pounds,  the 
charge  on  the  extractable  sugar  will  average  about  16  cents  per  100 
pounds.  It  is  apparent,  therefore,  that  the  sugar  factory  and  the  beet 
grower  must  be  near  each  other;  otherwise,  the  farmer  must  sell  his 
beets  at  a  lower  price  than  he  can  afford.  The  sugar  manufacturer 
must  obtain  his  beets  at  a  price  that  will  enable  him  to  sell  his  prod- 
uct in  competition  with  cane  sugar  or  he  will  fail.  Furthermore,  be- 
fore a  sugar  factory  is  built,  owners  of  capital  should  be  assured  of  a 
sufficient  quantity  of  beets  not  merely  for  one  year  but  for  several 
years. 

These  conditions  result  in  a  close  bond  of  common  interest  between 
the  manufacturer  and  the  farmer.  This  interdependence,  however, 
is  not  evenly  balanced  because  when  the  farmer  can  grow  other  crops 
at  a  profit  equal  to  or  greater  than  that  derived  from  beets  he  is  likely 
to  do  so.  That  is  to  say,  if  for  any  reason  beets  should  not  be  as 
satisfactory  as  some  other  crop,  he  can  generally  utilize  his  land 

152 


• 


,i«-( 


\  without  suffering  disadvantage.  The  farmer  therefore  is  not  en- 
tirely dependent  upon  the  sugar  factory.  If  he  expects  to  grow  beets 
at  all,  however,  he  must  have  a  factory  reasonably  near  him.  It  may 
be  argued  by  some  that  the  manufacturer  is  not  entirely  dependent 
upon  the  farmer  for  the  reason  that  he  has  the  alternative  of  grow- 
ing his  own  supply  of  beets.  Practical  experience,  however,  does  not 
support  this  argument.  In  general,  the  growing  of  beets  by  the 
manufacturer  in  sufficient  quantity  to  supply  his  factory  is  not 
feasible.  Sometimes  the  necessary  land  can  not  be  had,  and  even 
when  it  can  experience  has  frequently  failed  to  commend  this  method 
of  obtaining  a  beet  supply.  The  results  of  farming  operations  en- 
gaged in  by  sugar  manufacturers  have  often  resulted  in  loss.  Prac- 
tically, therefore,  the  manufacturer  is  dependent  upon  the  farmer  for 
his  supply  of  beets. 

The  history  of  the  beet-sugar  industry  in  this  country  has  conclu- 
sively demonstrated  this  interdependence  of  the  two  interests.  With 
few  exceptions  no  beet-sugar  factory  has  been  successful  where  it 
could  not  depend  upon  the  farmers  in  the  community  where  it  was 
erected.  The  failure  of  a  number  of  factories,  and  probably  most  of 
those  that  have  been  unsuccessful,  has  been  due  to  the  unwillingness 
or  the  inability  of  the  farmers  to  supply  a  sufficient  quantity  of  beets, 
or  if  the  quantity  was  sufficient  the  quality  was  too  low  to  be  profit- 
able to  the  factory.  This  close  relation  between  the  sugar  ,manuf ac- 
turer  and  the  beet  grower  suggests  the  desirability  of  hearty,  friendly 
cooperation  between  the  two  interests. . 

Section  2.  Contract  prices  for  beets. 

Practically  all  sugar-beet  growers  enter  into  contract  with  the 
sugar  manufacturers  for  the  sale  of  their  beets  before  the  seed  are 
planted.  It  is  a  rare  thing  to  find  a  farmer  growing  beets  without 
a  contract.  This  is  due  in  the  first  place  to  the  fact  that  the  beet- 
sugar  manufacturer  must  have  reasonable  assurance  of  a  sufficient 
quantity  of  beets  to  operate  his  factory,  and  in  the  second  place  to 
the  desire  of  farmers  generally  to  have  some  assurance  in  advance 
of  planting  as  to  the  price  they  will  receive  for  their  beets. 

There  are  numerous  variations  in  the  terms  of  the  contracts, 
particularly  in  respect  to  the  price  that  is  to  be  paid.  Speaking 
broadly,  all  prices  are  based  on  the  sugar  content  of  the  beets.  In 
many  cases,  however,  this  basis  embraces  a  considerable  range  of 
sugar  content,  and  it  is  therefore  rather  indefinite.  Generally  there  is 
a  base  price  for  a  specified  range  in  the  percentage  of  sugar  and  a 
^/  I     J         scale  of  advance  in  price  as  the  percentage  increases  above  the  maxi- 

lum  of  the  basis  range.    In  other  cases  there  is  a  flat  rate  for  all 
beets  where  the  sugar  content  does  not  fall  below  a  certain  per  cent. 


7 
t 


11 


154  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE  UNITED  STATES. 

There  is  also  frequently  a  imnimum  content  below  which  the  factory 
will  not  take  the  beets.  Sometimes  there  is  a  limitation  as  to  the 
maximum  size  of  the  beets,  those  that  are  extremely  large  not  being 
desirable. 

That  portion  of  the  contract  relating  to  the  price  to  be  paid  for 
beets  during  the  past  2  or  3  years  is  shown  below  for  several  com- 
panies operating  in  the  principal  beet  sugar  producing  sections. 
These  contracts  do  not  cover  all  the  factories,  but  they  represent  those 
companies  that  produce  the  bulk  of  the  beet  sugar. 

Contracts  in  1913  and  1914.— The  contracts  for  the  year  1914  used 
by  most  of  the  companies  operating  in  Michigan  provided  for  the 
payment  for  beets  as  follows: 

Said  beets  shall  be  harvested  and  loaded  by  the  grower  for 
the  company  on  cars,  or  delivered  at  factory  sheds,  at  such  time 
and  in  such  quantities  as  may  be  directed  by  the  company.  The 
company  will  not  be  liable  to  receive  or  pay  for  beets  which  do 
not  test  12  per  cent  sugar,  are  rotten,  or  otherwise  unfit  or  un- 
desirable for  making  sugar. 

For  beets  delivered  under  this  contract  and  loaded  on  cars 
by  the  grower,  the  company  will  pay  five  dollars  ($5)  per  ton 
at  loading  point ;  and  for  beets  delivered  to  the  company's  fac- 
tory by  wagon  and  unloaded  by  the  grower  into  the  company's 
beet  bins,  the  company  will  pay  five  dollars  and  sixty  cents 
($5.60)  per  ton.  Both  of  above  prices  are  to  be  applied  to 
weight  of  beets  after  making  deductions  for  dirt  and  improper 
topping.  Payments  to  be  made  on  the  15th  of  the  month  follow- 
ing the  delivery  of  beets. 

Prior  to  1914  the  contracts  of  the  Michigan  companies  provided 
for  a  rate  of  $4.50  a  ton  for  beets  having  a  sugar  content  of  not  less 
than  12  per  cent  and  33^  cents  for  each  additional  1  per  cent  of 
sugar. 

Some  of  the  factories  in  Ohio  have  had  two  forms  of  contract,  one 
with  a  sliding  scale  and  the  other  providing  for  a  flat  rate.  The  slid- 
ing scale  contract  used  in  1913  was  as  follows : 

For  all  beets  grown  and  delivered  at  the  factory  under  the 
above  conditions,  the  sugar  company  agrees  to  pay  four  dollars 
and  fifty  cents  ($4.50)  per  net  ton  weight  for  beets,  and  33^ 
cents  per  ton  more  for  each  1  per  cent  of  increase  in  the  amount 
of  sugar  above  12  per  cent. 

The  grower  will  be  paid  under  this  contract  all  the  beets  are 
worth  according  to  test,  and  is  guaranteed  not  less  than  $5  per 
ton  delivered  at  railwav  station. 

The  provisions  of  the  flat  rate  contract  were  as  follows : 

The  beets  are  to  be  given  due  care,  and  as  far  as  practicable 
the  undersigned  will  follow  instructions  in  regard  to  selecting 


S) 


r 


^ 


SUGAR  MANUFACTURERS  AND  BEET  GROWERS. 


155 


■I* 


and  preparing  the  soil,  seeding,  caring  for  and  harvesting  the 
crop.  The  beets  will  be  paid  for  at  the  rate  of  five  dollars  ($5) 
per  ton. 

Said  beets  shall  be  harvested  and  delivered  by  the  grower  to 
the  company  at  such  times  and  in  such  quantities  as  may  be  di- 
rected by  the  company,  allowing  each  grower  his  pro  rata 
amount.  The  company  will  not  be  liable  to  receive  or  pay  for 
beets  improperly  topped  or  which  are  rotten  or  otherwise  unfit 
or  undesirable  for  making  sugar. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  1913  sliding  scale  contract  above  quoted 
guarantees  not  less  than  $5  per  ton  and  it  is  assumed  that  this  guar- 
antee was  made  upon  the  theory  that  the  beets  would  have  a  sufficient 
sugar  content  to  call  for  $5  per  ton  under  the  contract. 

The  contract  with  the  beet  growers  in  the  vicinity  of  Billings, 
Mont.,  for  the  year  1913  with  regard  to  prices  was  as  follows : 

Beets  delivered  and  accepted  will  be  paid  for  by  the  company 
as  follows: 

$5  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  12  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
14  per  cent. 

5.12^  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  14  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
14.5  per  cent. 

$5.25  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  14.5  per  cent  sugar  and 
under  15  per  cent. 

$5.50  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  15  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
15.5  per  cent. 

$5.62^  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  15.5  per  cent  sugar  and 
under  16  per  cent. 

$5.75  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  16  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
16.5  per  cent. 

$5.87^  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  16.5  per  cent  sugar  and 
under  17  per  cent. 

$6  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  17  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
17.5  per  cent. 

$6.12^  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  17.5  i)er  cent  sugar  and 
under  18  per  cent. 

$6.25  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  18  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
18.5  per  cent. 

$6.37^  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  18.5  per  cent  sugar  and 
under  19  per  cent. 

$6.50  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  19  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
19.5  per  cent. 

And  12^  cents  per  ton  additional  for  each  one-half  per  cent  above  19.5 
per  cent. 

The  contracts  in  Montana  for  1914  prescribed  a  base  price  of  $4.75 
per  ton,  but  because  of  the  increase  in  the  price  of  sugar  when  the 
time  of  delivery  came  the  growers  were  paid  according  to  the  con- 
tract for  1913. 

The  contract  with  the  growers  in  the  vicinity  of  ScottsblufF,  Nebr., 
in  1912  and  1913,  provided  for  a  flat  rate  as  follows : 

That  it,  its  successors  or  assigns,  will  purchase  all  beets  suit- 
able for  sugar-niaking  purposes,  grown,  harvested,  and  delivered 
in  accordance  with  the  terms,  specifications,  and  requirements  of 
this  contract  and  pay  therefor  at  the  rate  herein  specified  (less 


I 


I 


I 


I 


f 


V 


~T  ~i  Tra  -a^^^ii^ma 


JU. 


156  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

the  usual  deductions  for  dirt,  leaves,  and  improperly  topped  or 
damaged  beets),  to  wit: 

For  all  beets  delivered  at  factory  or  designated  receiving  sta- 
tions in  good  condition,  of  eighty  (80)  per  cent  purity  or 
better,  and  containing  twelve  (12)  per  cent  or  more  sugar $5.00 

It  being  agreed  and  understood  that  the  company  shall  not  be 
obliged  to  receive  any  beets  prior  to  October  15th  containing 
less  than  fifteen  (15)  per  cent  sugar. 

The  contract  for  1914  with  the  growers  at  Scottsbluff  provided  for 
a  flat  rate  of  $4.50  per  ton,  but  at  the  time  of  delivery  the  manufac- 
turers restored  the  1913  price. 

The  contract  with  the  growers  in  northern  Colorado  for  1913  was 
as  follows: 

Beets  delivered  and  accepted  will  be  paid  for  by  the  company 
as  follows:  "^ 

$5  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  12  and  under  14  per  cent  sugar 
$o.l25  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  14  and  under  14.5  per  cent 
sugar. 

$5.25  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  14.5  and  under  15  ner  cent 
sugar.  ^ 

$5.50  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  15  and  under  15.5  per  cent 
sugar.  ^ 

$5,625  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  15.5  and  under  16  oer  cent 
sugar.  ^ 

$5.75  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  16  and  under  16.5  per  cent 
sugar.  ^ 

$5,875  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  16.5  and  under  17  oer  cent 
sugar.  ^ 

!^  ?o J  **^°  ^^^  ^^^*^  testing  not  less  than  17  and  under  17.5  per  cent  sugar 
$6,125  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  17.5  and  under  18  per  cent 
sugar.  ^ 

$6.25  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  18  and  under  18.5  per  cent 
sugar.  ^ 

$6,375  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  18.5  and  under  19  ner  cent 
sugar.  ^ 

$6.50  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  19  and  under  19.5  oer  cent 
sugar.  ^ 

And  12^  cents  per  ton  additional  for  each  additional  one-half  of  1  per  cent 
increase  thereafter.  ^ 

In  1914  the  Great  Western  Sugar  Co.  paid  a  flat  rate  of  $4.50  a  ton 
to  some  growers  in  northern  Colorado,  but  generally  a  sliding-scale 
contract  was  adopted  that  fixed  the  base  price  at  $4.75.  As  in  the 
case  of  Montana  and  Nebraska,  the  Great  Western  restored  the  1913 
price  when  the  price  of  sugar  rose  in  1914. 

A  contract  used  by  one  company  in  southern  Colorado  provided 
the  following  prices  for  the  year  1913 : 

The  company  agrees  to  purchase  from  first  party  the  net  beets 
grown  on  acreage  as  above  mentioned. 

First.  To  pay  therefor  for  all  beets  grown  under  this  con- 
tract, after  proper  tare  deductions  have  been  made  for  dirt, 
rocks,  leaves,  and  improper  topping,  as  follows : 

$5  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  12  per  cent  sugar  and  under  14 
per  cent. 

$5.12*  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  14  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
14.5  per  cent. 


SUGAR  MANUFACTURERS  AND  BEET  GROWERS.  157 

$5.25  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  14.5  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
15  per  cent. 

$5.50  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  15  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
15.5  per  cent. 

$5.62^  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  15.5  per  cent  sugar  and 
under  16  per  cent. 

$5.75  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  16  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
c^  16.5  per  cent. 

^'^  $5.82i  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  16.5  per  cent  sugar  and 

»  under  17  per  cent. 

$6  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  17  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
I  17.5  per  cent. 

$6.12^  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  17.5  per  cent  sugar  and 
under  18  per  cent. 

$6.25  per  ton  for  b^ets  testing  not  less  than  18  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
18.5  per  cent. 

$6.27^  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  18.5  per  cent  sugar  and 
^  under  19  per  cent 

\  $6.50  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  19  per  cent  sugar  and  under 

19.5  per  cent. 

And  12^  cents  per  ton  additional  for  each  additional  half  of  1  per  cent 
increase  thereafter. 

Another  factory  in  southern  Colorado  in  1913  secured  contracts 
at  the  following  rates : 

For  beets  delivered,  samples  of  which  test  not  less  than  twelve 
(12%)  per  cent  and  up  to  sixteen  (16%)  per  cent  sugar  to  the 
weight  of  the  beet,  and  a  purity  of  not  less  than  80%,  per  ton  of 
(  2,000   lbs $5  50 

For  beets  delivered,  samples  of  which  test  sixteen  (16%)  per  cent 
sugar  or  more,  per  ton  of  2,000  lbs 6. 00 

In  1914  this  latter  factory  adopted  the  following  scale  of  prices: 

For  beets  delivered,  samples  of  which  test  not  less  than  twelve 
(12%)  per  cent  and  up  to  sixteen  (16%)  per  cent  sugar  to  the 
weight  of  the  beet,  with  a  purity  of  not  less  than  80%,  per  ton  of 
2,000   lbs $5. 00 

For  beets  delivered,  samples  of  which  test  sixteen  (16%)  per  cent 
sugar  to  the  weight  of  the  beet,  and  above,  with  a  purity  of  not  less 
than  80%,  per  ton  of  2,000  lbs 5. 50 

This  company  stipulated  in  its  contracts  for  both  years  that  it 
would  not  be  bound  to  receive  any  beets  testing  less  than  12  per  cent 
in  sugar  or  containing  less  than  80%  purity. 

The  schedule  of  prices  shown  in  the  contract  of  another  company 
operating  in  southern  Colorado  was  as  follows : 

For  beets  testing—  Per  ton. 

25  per  cent  sugar ^9^  33^ 

24  per  cent  sugar 9  00 

23  per  cent  sugar g  ggj 

22  per  cent  sugar g  33^ 

21  per  cent  sugar g  oo 

20  per  cent  sugar 7  qq^ 

19  per  cent  sugar 7^  33^ 

18  per  cent  sugar 7  00 

17  per  cent  sugar 6.66f 

16  per  cent  sugar g^  33^ 


I 


\ 


158  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY   IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

For  beets  testing —  Per  ton. 

15  per  cent  sugar $6.  00 

14  per  cent  sugar 5.  66§ 

13  per  cent  sugar 5.  33i 

12  per  cent  sugar 5.00 

33i  cents  per  ton  additional  for  eacli  per  cent  above  25  per  cent, 
fractions  in  proportion. 
This  company  reserved  the  option  of  rejecting  beets  showing  less 
than  12  per  cent  of  sugar  or  less  than  80  per  cent  purity. 

The  schedule  of  prices  shown  in  the  contract  employed  in  the  vicin- 
ity of  Grand  Junction,  Colo.,  in  1913,  was  as  follows: 

Beets  delivered  and  accepted  will  be  paid  for  by  the  company  as  follows : 
$5  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  12  per  cent  sugar  and  under 

15  per  cent. 

$5.25  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  15  per  cent  sugar  and  under 

15.5  per  cent. 
$5,375  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  15.5  per  cent  sugar  and  under 

16  per  cent. 

$5.50  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  16  per  cent  sugar  and  under 

16.5  per  cent. 

$5,625  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  16.5  per  cent  sugar  and 

under  17  per  cent. 

$5.75  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  17  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
17.5  per  cent. 

$5,875  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  17.5  per  cent  sugar  and  under 
18  per  cent. 

$6  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  18  per  cent  sugar  and  under 

18.5  per  cent. 
$6,125  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  18.5  per  cent  sugar  and 

under  19  per  cent. 
$6.25  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  19  per  cent  sugar  and  under 

19.5  per  cent. 
$6,375  per  ton  for  beets  testing  not  less  than  19.5  per  cent  sugar  and 

under  20  per  cent. 

And  twelve  and  one-half  cents  (12ic.)  per  ton  additional  for  each  one- 
half  per  cent  above  20  per  cent. 

In  1914  this  company  reduced  the  price  to  a  flat  rate  of  $4.75 

per  ton. 

In  1911,  1912,  and  1913  beets  were  bought  under  at  least  two  rates 
in  Idaho.  The  following  were  the  rates  paid  under  one  form  of 
contract : 

For  all  beets  in  good  condition  of  eighty  (80)  per  cent  purity 
or  better,  and  containing  fifteen  (15)  per  cent  sugar,  five  dol- 
lars ($5)  per  ton. 

For  all  beets  in  good  condition  of  eighty  (80)  per  cent  purity, 
containing  no  less  than  twelve  (12)  per  cent  and  under  fifteen 
(15)  per  cent  sugar,  four  dollars  and  twenty-five  cents  ($4.25) 
per  ton. 


-^ 


( 


> 


■* 


*w 


r 


-^ 


¥  IV 


SUGAR  MANUFACTURERS  AND  BEET  GROWERS. 


159 


Under  another  form  of  contract  the  following  rates  were  paid : 

For  all  beets  in  good  condition  of  eighty  (80)  per  cent  purity 
or  better,  and  containing  fifteen  (15)  per  cent  or  more  sugar, 
five  dollars  ($5)  per  ton. 

For  all  beets  in  good  condition  of  eighty  (80)  per  cent  purity, 
containing  not  less  than  twelve  (12)  per  cent  and  under  fifteen 
(15)  per  cent  sugar,  four  dollars  and  seventy-five  cents  ($4.75) 

per  ton. 

• 

Under  both  of  the  above  contracts  the  sugar  company  was  not 
bound  to  receive  beets  of  less  than  80  per  cent  purity  or  that  tested 
less  than  12  per  cent  sugar. 

In  Utah  and  Idaho  in  1913  both  a  sliding  scale  and  a  flat-rate  con- 
tract were  in  use.  The  provisions  of  the  flat-rate  contract  were  as 
follows : 

Such  beets  shall  contain  not  less  than  12  per  cent  saccharine, 
with  a  purity  of  80  per  cent. 

*  »^  *  4e  *  «  * 

It  shall  be  optional  with  the  sugar  company  to  accept  or  reject 
any  beets  not  delivered  on  or  before  the  last  day  of  November. 

4:  iF  4c  4c  4:  «  * 

The  sugar  company  agrees  that  on  or  about  the  loth  day  of 
each  month  it  will  pay  $4.75  per  ton  at  factory  for  all  beets  re- 
ceived during  the  preceding  calendar  month. 

The  sliding-scale  contract  in  Utah  was  as  follows : 

< 

During  the  month  of  September  and  up  to  October  20,  in- 
clusive, it  will  purchase  at  $5  per  ton  all  beets  grown  upon 
•  said  land  that  may  have  an  average  polarization  of  not  less 
than  15  per  cent  saccharine  and  80  per  cent  purity;  such  beets 
to  be  delivered  only  as  ordered  by  the  sugar  company,  but  after 
October  20  as  rapidly  as  the  grower  may  desire. 

In  case  any  part  of  the  beets  raised  hereunder  shall  not  be 
delivered  before  November  1,  or  if  the  delivery  of  any  part 
thereof  shall  be  stopped  before  that  date  because  the  polariza- 
tion shall  not  equal  the  required  standard,  then  the  sugar  com- 
pany agrees  thereafter  and  up  to  November  30  to  purchase  all 
such  beets  not  previously  ordered  or  delivered  as  may  polarize 
more  than  12  per  cent  and  less  than  13  per  cent  saccharine  with 
80  per  cent  purity  at  $4.25  per  ton;  and  all  containing  13  per 
cent  and  less  than  14  per  cent  saccharine  with  80  per  cent  purity, 
at  $4.50  per  ton;  and  all  containing  14  per  cent  and  less  than 
15  per  cent  saccharine  with  80  per  cent  purity,  at  $4.75  per  ton; 
and  all  containing  15  per  cent  or  more  saccharine  with  80  per 
cent  purity,  at  $5  per  ton. 

It  shall  be  optional  with  the  sugar  company  to  accept  or  reject 
any  beets  not  delivered  on  or  before  the  last  day  of  November. 

The  above  prices  were  also  paid  in  Utah  in  1914. 
There  was  considerable  variation  in  the  prices  paid  in  California. 
Those  representing  the  purchase  of  probably  the  greater  portion  of 


I 


r 


^1 


I 


160  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

beets  grown  are  here  shown.    A  sliding-scale  contract  used  in  1912, 
1913,  and  1914  by  one  company  was  as  follows : 

The  company  will  weigh  and  pay  the  grower  for  all  beets  de- 
livered and  accepted,  after  above  deduction,  the  following  prices 
per  ton  of  2,000  pounds : 

Beets  testing  15  per  cent  sugar,  $5.25  per  ton,  with  an  addi- 
tional 25  cents  per  ton  for  each  1  per  cent  of  sugar  above  15  per 
cent.  Fractions  of  a  per  cent  in  proportion.  Beets  testing  under 
15  per  cent  sugar  down  to  11  per  cent  sugar,  $5  per  ton.  The 
company  reserves  the  right  to  reject  beets  testing  under  11  per 
cent  sugar  not  suitable  for  making  sugar. 

The  company  will  also  pay  all  railroad  freights  on  beets 
loaded  on  cars,  provided  cars  be  loaded  to  full  capacity.  Demur- 
rage charges  shall  be  paid  by  the  grower. 

A  flat-rate  contract  used  by  the  same  company  was  $5.50  per  ton 
and  the  company  reserved  the  right  to  reject  beets  testing  under 
11  per  cent.  Another  company  in  1912  and  1913  paid  for  its  beets 
on  a  scale  as  follows : 

Beets  testing  fifteen  (15)  per  cent  sugar,  five  ($5)  dollars  per 
ton,  with  an  addition  of  thirty  (30)  cents  per  ton  for  each  one 
(1)  per  cent  of  sugar  above  fifteen  (15)  per  cent  and  a  deduc- 
tion of  twenty-five  (25)  cents  per  ton  for  each  one  (1)  per  cent 
below  fifteen  (15)  per  cent,  down  to  and  including  eleven  (11) 
per  cent;  fractions  in  proportion. 

Beets  testing  under  eleven  (11)  per  cent  will  be  accepted  as  if 
testing  eleven  (11)  per  cent  if  weighing  under  five  (5)  pounds. 
The  factory  reserves  the  right  to  reject  beets  testing  under 
eleven  (11)  per  cent  sugar  and  weighing  over  five  (5)  pounds. 

In  1909,  1910,  1911,  and  in  1914  the  base  price  was  only  $4.50  for 
beets  testing  15  per  cent.  The  contracts  for  these  years  had  the 
same  reservation  for  beets  testing  under  11  per  cent  as  that  quoted 
above. 

Contracts  in  1915.— In  some  sections  the  contracts  offered  the 
farmers  in  1915  differed  considerably  from  those  adopted  in  any 
previous  year.     In  other  sections  they  were  substantially  the  same. 

In  Montana  and  northern  Colorado  the  1915  contracts  were  the 
same  as  those  entered  into  in  1913  and  those  made  effective  in  1914. 

Practically  all  the  factories  operating  in  Michigan  adopted  a  flat 
rate  of  $6  per  ton  in  1915.  This  was  quite  an  advance  over  the  con- 
tract price  paid  in  that  State  in  1914  and  considerably  higher  than 
was  paid  in  any  year  prior  to  that  time  except  for  beets  that  tested 
above  16  per  cent. 

In  Utah  and  Idaho  contracts  in  1915  generally  provided  for  $5  per 
ton  for  beets  testing  15  per  cent  and  a  deduction  of  25  cents  per  ton 
for  each  per  cent  of  sugar  less  than  15.  Some  of  these  contracts, 
however,  provided  that  the  price  for  all  beets  testing  not  below  12  per 
cent  should  be  $4.75. 


SUGAR  MANUFACTURERS  AND  BEET  GROWERS. 


161 


^M^ 


\ 
i* 


(( 


# 


t 


V 


r 


i 


'4 


y 


V 


A  significant  clause  was  found  in  the  1915  contracts  offered  by 
the  companies  operating  in  Ohio  and  some  companies  operating  in 
California.  The  companies  in  Ohio  offered  a  flat  price  of  $5  per  ton 
for  beets  delivered  at  the  railroad  station,  with  the  provision  that  if 
the  average  price  of  beet  sugar  exceeded  $5  per  100  pounds  the  grower 
would  receive  as  additional  compensation  per  ton  of  beets  the  dif- 
ference between  $5  and  the  average  price  of  sugar.  Thus,  if  the 
average  price  of  beet  sugar  per  100  pounds  should  be  $5.75,  then  the 
price  of  beets  would  be  $5.75.  Some  of  the  Wisconsin  factories  en- 
tered into  similar  contracts.  In  California  the  contracts  of  some  of 
the  factories  provided  for  $4.50  for  15  per  cent  beets  plus  30  cents  for 
each  additional  per  cent,  or  a  deduction  of  25  cents  for  each  per  cent 
below  15,  and  a  bonus  of  50  cents  per  ton  if  the  average  net  selling 
price  of  sugar  exceeded  4^  cents  per  pound.  At  one  of  the  factories 
in  Nebraska  a  bonus  of  50  cents  per  ton  was  offered  if  all  the  growers 
together  delivered  more  than  135,000  tons  of  beets. 

In  general,  contracts  in  the  Lake  States  and  in  California  were 
more  favorable  than  those  adopted  in  any  previous  year. 

Apparent  inconsistencies  in  contracts. — ^An  analysis  of  these 
contract  prices  discloses  points  of  apparent  unfairness.  The  flat  rates 
do  not  take  into  account  the  sugar  content  above  a  stated  minimum. 
Thus,  for  example,  if  a  contract  to  pay  a  certain  price  per  ton  for 
beets  having  a  sugar  content  of  12  per  cent  is  a  fair  one,  that  price 
is  manifestly  unfair  to  farmers  whose  beets  test  more  than  12  per 
cent  and  who  are  paid  no  more.  That  the  flat  rate  contract  is  unfair 
is  recognized  by  the  extent  to  which  manufacturers  have  adopted  a 
sliding  scale  of  prices  graduated  according  to  the  sugar  content. 

The  sliding  scale  contracts,  however,  are  not  free  from  incon- 
sistencies. For  example,  if  $4.50  is  a  fair  price  for  12  per  cent  beets 
then  each  additional  per  cent  of  sugar  should  be  worth  at  least  37^ 
cents.  And  so,  if  12  per  cent  beets  are  worth  $5  per  ton  then  each 
additional  per  cent  of  sugar  should  be  worth  at  least  41§  cents.  No 
manufacturer  in  the  United  States  pays  as  high  a  price  as  this  for 
additional  sugar  in  the  beet.  As  a  matter  of  fact  each  additional 
per  cent  of  sugar  above  12  per  cent  is  worth  more  relatively  than  each 
per  cent  below  12.  Experience  shows  that  a  greater  percentage  of 
the  sugar  content  is  extracted  from  high-grade  beets  than  from  low- 
grade  beets.  These  apparent  inconsistencies  were  pointed  out  to 
an  official  of  one  of  the  large  sugar  companies,  who  is  one  of  the 
best  informed  men  on  this  subject  in  the  country.  He  stated  that 
the  inconsistencies  referred  to  were  not  merely  apparent  but  real. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  according  to  this  official,  $5  per  ton  is  too  high 
a  price  for  beets  testing  only  12  per  cent.  He  stated  that  the  ex- 
perience  of  his  company  had  been  that  16  per  cent  beets  were  worth 


f 


I 


A' 


162  THE   BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

upon  an  average  about  $5.75  per  ton,  or  36  cents  for  each  per  cent 
of  sugar.  The  reason  stated  for  the  relatively  high  price  for  low- 
grade  beets  is  that  the  farmers  insist  upon  a  guaranty  of  a  fairly 
high  minimum  price.  In  other  words,  the  farmers  in  some  com- 
munities will  not  grow  beets  at  all  unless  they  can  have  a  guaranty 
of  at  least  $5  per  ton.  When  the  minimum  price  is  too  high,  the 
manufacturer  protects  himself  by  adopting  a  lower  price  for  the 
additional  sugar. 

If  it  is  assumed,  as  stated  by  the  authority  above  referred  to,  that 
in  beets  testing  16  per  cent,  each  per  cent  of  sugar  is  worth  about 
36  cents,  then  in  actual  practice  the  apparent  inconsistencies  in  the 
contracts  are  partially  overcome.    The  factories  operating  in  Colo- 
rado have  paid  during  the  5  years  ending  with  the  compaign  of  1914 
almost  exactly  36  cents  for  each  per  cent  of  sugar  in  the  beets  as 
they  enter  the  factory.    The  percentage  of  sugar  in  the  beets  when 
introduced  into  the  factory  is  somewhat  lower  than  the  percentage 
shown  when  they  are  tested  at  the  receiving  stations.    The  average 
sugar  content  of  the  beets  entering  the  factories  in  the  State  of 
Colorado  for  5  years  was  a  little  less  than  15^  per  cent  and  the  aver- 
age price  paid  the  farmer  for  this  sugar  was  almost  exactly  36  cents 
for  each  per  cent  of  sugar  shown  in  the  factory  test.    In  Montana  • 
the  discrepancy  was  greater,  the  price  paid  for  17  per  cent  beets 
being  about  34  cents  for  each  per  Cent  of  sugar.    In  Utah  and  Idaho 
the  price  was  considerably  lower,  being  only  about  30  cents  for  each 
per  cent  of  sugar.     In  California  the  average  was  about  the  same  ' 
as  in  Utah  and  Idaho.     In  the  Lake  States  the  average  price  was 
higher.    There  it  was  approximately  40  cents  for  each  per  cent  of 
sugar. 

Beside  the  inconsistencies  in  the  contracts  themselves  there  is  a 
striking  contrast  between  the  contracts  in  various  beet -growing 
sections.  Thus,  the  Michigan  manufacturer  will  pay  $4.50  for  12 
per  cent  beets,  whereas  most  of  the  manufacturers  in  Colorado  will 
pay  $5  for  beets  of  the  same  sugar  content.  In  Utah  some  of  the 
contracts  allow  only  $5  flat  for  15  per  cent  beets.  In  other  words, 
they  allow  33^  cents  for  each  per  cent  of  sugar  in  15  per  cent  beets, 
but  if  the  beets  should  test  18  per  cent  they  will  still  take  them  at 
$5  per  ton.  The  payment  of  a  different  price  in  different  sections 
may  be  justified  by  distance  from  consuming  markets  or  possibly  for 
some  other  reason,  but  there  is  no  apparent  justification  for  different 
prices  in  the  same  community  by  the  same  company. 

From  the  standpoint  of  those  who  insist  upon  encouraging  the 
extension  of  the  industry  in  new  and  untried  localities  some  of  the  in- 
equalities just  pointed  out  may  be  justified.  It  is  certainly  true  that 
capital  can  not  be  expected  to  venture  into  beet-sugar  manufacturing 
unless  there  is  an  assurance  of  a  supply  of  beets.     It  is  probably 


/►  " 


i 


;> 


I/- 


\i 


r 


SUGAR  MANUFACTURERS  AND  BEET  GROWERS. 


163 


true  that  farmers  would  not  agree  to  grow  beets  unless  they  were 
guaranteed  a  remunerative  price  for  their  product,  even  though 
the  quality  might  not  warrant  it.  Under  such  circumstances  differ- 
ences in  price  not  justified  by  the  quality  of  beets  may  be  necessary  to 
promote  the  industry  in  new  fields,  but  their  continuation  after  the 
quality  of  the  beets  has  been  improved  from  experience  in  growing 
them  can  not  be  justified.  The  maintenance  of  such  a  system  results 
in  the  farmer  who  grows  low-gi-ade  beets  being  paid  more  than  they 
are  worth,  while  the  grower  of  high-grade  beets  is  paid  less. 

Section  3.  The  test  of  a  fair  price  for  beets. 

The  beet  grower  often  complains  that  he  does  not  receive  a  fair 
price  for  his  beets.  The  sugar  manufacturer  replies  that  the  farmer 
makes  as  much  or  more  money  on  his  beets  as  he  does  on  any 
other  crop.  This  is  probably,  in  the  main,  true.  The  farmer  re- 
joins with  the  assertion  that  the  manufacturer  makes  large  profits 
extracting  sugar  from  beets  and  that  he  can  afford  to  pay  more 
for  them  than  he  does  pay.  This  also  is  sometimes  true.  It  is 
thus  seen  that  the  manufacturer  applies  one  test  as  to  the  fairness 
of  the  price  and  the  beet  grower  applies  another.  The  contention  of 
the  grower  that  the  large  profits  of  the  manufacturer  would  often 
enable  him  to  pay  a  higher  price  than  he  does  pay  implies  the  idea 
of  cooperation.  If  the  profits  of  a  manufacturer  are  a  fair  cri- 
terion for  the  establishment  of  the  price  of  beets,  then  the  grower 
should  be  willing  always  to  accept  a  price  low  enough  to  enable 
the  manufacturer  to  realize  a  profit.  In  other  words,  on  this  basis 
of  establishing  the  price  of  beets,  when  the  sugar  business  is 
prosperous  the  beet  grower  would  receive  a  high  price,  and  when 
it  is  not  prosperous  he  would  receive  a  low  price.  If  this  system  of 
determining  prices  had  been  employed  in  the  past  the  farmers  sup- 
plying a  number  of  factories  would  have  received  a  very  much 
lower  price  for  beets  than  they  have  received.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  farmers  in  the  vicinity  of  other  factories  would  have  received 
a  very  much  higher  price.  Some  factories  have  never  made  much 
money  and  have  often  lost  large  sums.  If  the  farmers  had  shared 
these  losses,  the  results  of  their  beet-growing  operations  would  have 
l)een  disastrous. 

With  a  fixed  price  for  beets  the  intelligent,  industrious  farmer  is 
generally  assured  a  fair  return  for  his  efforts.  As  soon  as  he  har- 
vests his  beets  he  knows  precisely  what  he  has  made.  This  ad- 
vantage of  certainty  is  unquestionably  worth  considering.  If  the 
price  of  beets  depended  absolutely  upon  the  vicissitudes  of  the  sugar 
market  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  considerable  number  of  farmers 
would  be  willing  to  engage  in  this  branch  of  agriculture.  Upon 
the  whole,  therefore,  it  would  seem  that  the  principle  involved  in 


J  L  ■  -Jl 


164  THE  BEET  SUGAR  INDUSTRY  IN   THE   UNITED  STATES. 

the  present  system  of  determining  prices  of  beets  is  the  more  ad- 
vantageous to  the  beet  grower.  This  system,  however,  might  be 
more  equitable  by  basing  the  fixed  price  more  nearly  upon  the  sugar 
content  and  purity  of  beets.  The  sugar  manufacturer  knows  the 
relative  value  of  beets  of  different  tests,  and  he  should  be  willing 
to  pay  a  price  that  will  place  all  farmers  upon  an  equal  basis.  It 
is  manifestly  inequitable  to  fix  a  flat  price  for  beets  based  upon  a 
range  of  sugar  content  embracing  as  much  as  2  or  3  per  cent.  If 
the  farmer  who  grows  12  per  cent  beets  is  entitled  to  a  given  amount, 
say  $4.50  per  ton,  then  beets  testing  13,  14,  or  15  per  cent  are  worth 
proportionally  more  and  should  be  paid  for  on  that  basis.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  the  base  price  is  fixed  on  a  sugar  content  of,  say,  15 
per  cent,  then  the  farmer's  beets  which  test  below  this  are  not  worth 
as  much  as  the  basis  price  and  he  should  not  expect  to  receive  that 
price  for  them. 

The  reasonableness  of  basing  the  price  of  beets  upon  the  price 
OF  SUGAR.— As  already  pointed  out,  the  terms  of  some  beet  contracts 
made  in  1915  provided  for  a  minimum  price  for  beets  and  an  addi- 
tion to  that  price  in  case  the  price  of  sugar  should  be  above  a  cer- 
tam  figure.  Such  a  basis  for  determining  the  price  of  beets  deserves 
careful  consideration.  The  fixing  of  the  price  of  a  raw  material  a 
year  in  advance  of  the  time  when  the  value  of  the  manufactured 
product  can  be  determined  involves  considerable  speculative  risk. 

If  it  is  practicable  to  base  the  price  of  beets  upon  the  price  of 

sugar,  such  a  system  would  appear  to  be  entirely  reasonable  and  fair. 

Under  such  circumstances  the  beet  grower  would  be  assured  of  all  his 

beets  are  worth,  and  the  manufacturer  would  in  no  case  be  compelled 

to  pay  more  than  the  price  of  sugar  would  warrant.    It  would  seem 

much  more  reasonable  to  determine  the  price  of  beets  upon  this  basis 

than  upon  the  basis  of  the  profits  of  the  manufacturer.    It  is  realized 

that  there  would  be  some  difficulty  in  determining  the  proper  relation 

between  the  price  of  sugar  in  the  beet  and  the  manufactured  product. 

If  the  price  of  beets  could  be  determined  upon  some  such  basi?,  it 

would  at  least  tend  to  eliminate  the  controversies  that  are  nov/  so 

frequent  between  the  beet  growers  and  beet  sugar  manufacturers 

with  respect  to  the  price  of  beets.    Whether  determining  price^^  for 

beets  on  such  a  basis  would  discourage  their  cultivation  is  a  question 

which  only  experience  could  answer. 

O 


j»n 


i 


A 


^ 


y 


J 


n 


.-ii 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing,  as 
provided  by  the  library  rules  or  by  special  arrangement  with 
the  Librarian  in  charge. 


) 


DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

'*>                         ]     .     '_' 

« 

C20(114»)1OOM 

■ 

■ 

ftiM 

^M 

■r  '■1 

^^H 

[   'M 

^H 

tU 

^^1 

V 

PVHH 

H 

TTTT-    . 

■: 

B     v:l 

\ 

^Hu'        '''  I^M 

1 

^^HT           .^H 

i, 

^^Hi           ^HJ 

»' 

v  -1 

i 

1 1 

»>', 


■■■f..-A 


QAyLAMOUNT 

PAMPHLET  MHOU 

Mamm/aetuMi  ly 
6AYLORDBROS.IIICI 
SyracoM,  M.  V. 
StoekteM,  CmHS. 


^^^9^ 


f^l  4 


m 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


0041402812 


D510 


Dn25 


D510 


\3n35 


U.S.  Federal  trade  conunission. 

Report  on*e  beet  sugar  industry 
^S  ihe  united  States. 


MR9- 


/ 


/  » 


,.-  fc--<f 


/ 


'M^ 


"'^ 


•>■  '  ~^      >* 


^' 


■  W'' 


■  -i] 


END  OF 
TITLE 


